> 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. <<<<
Right. But this is the license of the binary, not the license of the sources. Tristan. _______________________________________________ Ghdl-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss
