> On 2014-01-12, [email protected] wrote: > > > What is the license status of GHDL generated binaries? > > > > This is clear: It's GPL because the runtime is pure GPL. > > Well, it is clear now in the sense that I understand your argument > and > I think it is valid. > > However, this was not clear to me before and the answer is not what I > expected. Most compilers I know produce binaries which may be > distributed without restrictions. This is certainly true for GCC, and > I think it is true even for MSVC etc. Until now, I had passively > assumed it would also be true for GHDL.
I agree this is not standard. > To be clear, we are talking about the copyright of GHDL output, > right? I am not a lawyer, but no, we are talking about the license. > Obviously /usr/bin/ghdl is GPL, that is a different matter. > But now it appears that ./testbench is also restricted by GPL. Yes. > Saying that ./testbench is licensed under GPL is not entirely > accurate. > In many cases ./testbench is a derived work based on my own VHDL > code, third party VHDL code and the GHDL source. As a result, several > different parties own copyrights on ./testbench. IANAL, but copyright is a different issue than license. If you redistribute ./testbench, you need to comply with the GPL. Roughly speaking you must also redistribute the sources of your design. _______________________________________________ Ghdl-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss
