[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Rep:Re: [f-cpu] The last killing argument FOR the GPL licence

Some point to discuss ! Great !

Michael Riepe a écrit :
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 12:01:39PM +0200, Yann Guidon wrote:
> > hello,
> >
> > Michael wrote :
> > > Oh no, not THAT discussion again :-(
> > Did you think it was over ?
> Suspended.
> I will change my license at most *once*. Until there is an `F-CPU
> Public License' that I can agree on, things will stay the way they
> are.
> In order to come to an agreement, we should start to compile a list of
> rights and responsibilities users shall have. In particular, they
> should be allowed to
>         - make verbatim copies of the complete source code
>         - distribute verbatim copies of the complete source code
>         - make derived works if they release the source code under the
>           same license

Okay that's copyleft.

>         - use parts of the source code in their own projects if they
>           release the source code under the same license and include a
>           notice that they are using parts of the F-CPU

Biip ! That's not permit by the GPL. The GPL FAQ explain that's not
possible for a pratical point of view. You must maintain a list of
contribution and will become very heavy to manage. That's why there is a
new BDB licence without the obligation of the copyright.

>         - substitute parts (e.g. gates, flipflops, maybe also memory)
>           with cells from proprietary cell libraries if it is necessary
>           in order to produce silicon (they shall, however, fully document
>           such changes)

That's the very interresting point. Allowed user to rewrite part of the
design wihtout distribute the change only to use technological cell's
librairy (memroy,...). We must take car that the definition must be
clear because it's very easy to create a design, make it a black box and
say it come from a "proprietary cell libraries".

I don't speak about gate-level which is like the compilition of the

>         - produce silicon and distribute it, as long as they also
>           deliver the source code for everything but the above mentioned
>           proprietary cell libraries (the source code for the substituted
>           components must still be included)

Maybe the fact to sell producte ( a system from the GPL point of view)
give the obligation to distribute the code as well.

I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system.
Can I do this?

     You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary
system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy,
redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you could
incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system, it would have
the effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too. 

A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of
that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must
be released under the GPL if it is released at all. This is for
two reasons: to make sure that users who get the software get the
freedom they should have, and to encourage people to give back
improvements that they make. 

However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software
alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make
sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length,
that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a
single program. 

The difference between this and "incorporating" the GPL-covered software
is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The substantive part is
this: if the two programs are combined so that they become
effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two
separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing. 

If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the
kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two
separate programs--but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply
of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about this?
Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the free
status of the GPL-covered software in the collection. 

If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it "part of" a
system that users know is partly proprietary, users might be uncertain
of their rights regarding the GPL-covered software. But if they know
that what they have received is a free program plus another program,
side by side, their rights will be clear. 

> --
>  Michael "Tired" Riepe <Michael.Riepe@stud.uni-hannover.de>
>  "All I wanna do is have a little fun before I die"
> *************************************************************
> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@seul.org with
> unsubscribe f-cpu       in the body. http://f-cpu.seul.org/
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@seul.org with
unsubscribe f-cpu       in the body. http://f-cpu.seul.org/