On Nov 4, 2014, at 8:09 PM, Andreas Bombe <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 07:07:06PM +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>> On 04/11/14 07:57, Joris van Rantwijk wrote:
>>> The problem with getting GHDL into debian is the IEEE library. It is
>>> not DFSG-free, to put it mildly. I don't see any way that it could be
>>> uploaded to the debian archive, and it does not seem very useful to
>>> have a GHDL package without those libraries.
>>
>> Rewriting ieee.std_logic_1164 shouldn't be a lot of work, but would that
>> be enough ? Can be propose a post-install download ?
>
> I think I read in some discussion that ghdl doesn't actually use the
> bodies of these packages but provides internal implementations of those.
> Do I remember wrong?
>
> For the record, the current license (the files in the ghdl source aren't
> currently updated to contain this license header) is:
>
> | This source file is an essential part of IEEE Std 1076-2008,
> | IEEE Standard VHDL Language Reference Manual. Verbatim copies of this
> | source file may be used and distributed without restriction.
> | Modifications to this source file as permitted in IEEE Std 1076-2008
> | may also be made and distributed. All other uses require permission
> | from the IEEE Standards Department([email protected]).
> | All other rights reserved.
>
> http://standards.ieee.org/news/2013/ieee_1076_vhdl.html
> http://standards.ieee.org/downloads/1076/1076-2008/
>
> I told Joris in private mail that this is almost free according to
> Debian guidelines, except that modifications are only allowed within a
> limited range. Well, also that it has a bit of ambiguous language
> (modifications may be distributed, but does that mean the modified files
> or really just the modification, i.e. a patch?). I now realized that it
> is also missing the permission to distribute binaries compiled from
> these sources.
>
> These limitations are no practical problem for ghdl itself, just for
> inclusion in Debian with its high standard of software freeness. That is
> if the copyright on the spec files is actually relevant.
It would be a good idea to get lawyers with the right expertise involved in
this. Perhaps the FSF would participate; it seems reasonable that they would,
given that GHDL is part of GCC. (It is, isnt’ it? Or is it an extension of
GCC but not part of the GNU project?)
>From what I know about GPL (note that IANAL), “these limitations” very much
>ARE a problem for GHDL, because GHDL is under GPL, which means that all parts
>of it have to be GPL, and a limitation on modification clearly conflicts with
>GPL and is therefore not permitted. It’s the incompatibility between the two
>licenses that is the issue here, not just the IEEE license considered in
>isolation.
paul
_______________________________________________
Ghdl-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss
