On 07/11/14 04:00, Andreas Bombe wrote:
> That would be overdoing it. For reverse engineering and preventing
accidental transfer of code into your own implementation, sure.
In our case we already have a natural language specification, it's the
VHDL Language Reference Manual.
Bitpicking: for ieee 1164, I think the standard says something like
that: here is the package spec, and the behaviour is formally defined
by the following package body.
For ieee 1076.3 (numeric_bit, numeric_std), the specs are part of the
standard, and the comments explain the behaviour.
Likewise for ieee 1076.2 (math).
At this point I wonder if it's not just simpler to just go and implement
a free alternative implementation instead of discussing at length how to
handle that IEEE license. I see that it would be some work, but the
payoff of not having to worry about the licenses would be worth it I
think.
Feel free to start the effort. That would be helpful.
Possibility D) We may distribute, but the files aren't DFSG free, so
put the ghdl package in Debian's non-free section.
Still problematic because binary packages contain compiled libraries.
Still problematic for the VHDL-1993 version and VITAL packages.
Right. Also, while looking at the libraries, I found that the textio
package is licensed under the GPL like the rest of ghdl, meaning that
any compiled simulation using textio falls under the GPL. Tristan, if
that's not intentional, you should think about adding a library
exception to amend those files' license like GCC does for the parts of
it that can be compiled/linked into its output.
Humm, correct. I should add the exception clause.
Tristan.
_______________________________________________
Ghdl-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss
