On 2014-01-12, [email protected] wrote:
> IANAL, but I agree with you: that's my understanding.
Just to be fair: I am not a lawyer either. In my opinion that does not
disqualify me from discussing legal matters.
> Yes, but currently I own the copyright of the GHDL runtime. So you
> cannot decide by your own the license of the binary; you have to
> comply with the license of the runtime (again IANAL).
Agreed. We come to the same conclusions. I just wanted to clarify the
connection between copyright and GPL.
> > Agreed. If I distribute the ./testbench, I must do so under the
> > terms of the GPL and include complete VHDL source code.
>
> IANAL, but I don't think it must be under the terms of the GPL. You
> have to respect the GPL, but I think it could be more liberal. For
> example, you could use BSD-like license for your design, and
> distribute both a binary and the sources.
No. Under the terms of the GPL, a work can only be redistributed under
those same terms, i.e. again under the GPL.
Quoting GPL version 2:
[...]
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under >>>> the terms of this License. <<<<
> That's why I think the GPL license of the runtime is not
> a real issue (or, there are more important issues).
Again agreed.
I don't think the license is a problem, but it was a mild surprise for
me and contradicted my assumptions.
Joris.
_______________________________________________
Ghdl-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss
