On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 04:34:09AM -0800, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com:
I'm not sure what your point is here. newlib is not under the GPL in
any case. It is not affected by the gcc runtime library license.
The old runtime library exception allowed you to
Quoting Joe Buck joe.b...@synopsys.com:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 04:34:09AM -0800, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com:
I'm not sure what your point is here. newlib is not under the GPL in
any case. It is not affected by the gcc runtime library license.
The old
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com:
I'm not sure what your point is here. newlib is not under the GPL in
any case. It is not affected by the gcc runtime library license.
The old runtime library exception allowed you to distribute binaries that
both include pieces of the gcc runtime and
2009/1/29 Joern Rennecke amyl...@spamcop.net:
The runtime library license says that you can link libgcc with
proprietary code, whether that proprietary code was compiled with gcc
or whether it was compiled with some non-gcc proprietary compiler.
No, it says that you can only do that if every
Quoting Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com:
2009/1/29 Joern Rennecke amyl...@spamcop.net:
The runtime library license says that you can link libgcc with
proprietary code, whether that proprietary code was compiled with gcc
or whether it was compiled with some non-gcc proprietary
Joern Rennecke amyl...@spamcop.net writes:
Quoting Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com:
2009/1/29 Joern Rennecke amyl...@spamcop.net:
The runtime library license says that you can link libgcc with
proprietary code, whether that proprietary code was compiled with gcc
or whether it was
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com:
Joern Rennecke amyl...@spamcop.net writes:
Quoting Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com:
2009/1/29 Joern Rennecke amyl...@spamcop.net:
The runtime library license says that you can link libgcc with
proprietary code, whether that proprietary
Joern Rennecke amyl...@spamcop.net writes:
Note that there is also code which is not written in a high level language
which uses gcc runtime library interfaces. For example, look at
libgloss/m68k/crt0.S , which uses __do_global_dtors .
That the license of libgloss is GPL-compatible does not
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com:
Code that is neither Target Code nor an Independent Module is code
that has never been involved with gcc, and the license does not cover
it.
There is a lot of Target code that is, per definition, not an
Independent Module because it does not use the
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com:
Joern Rennecke amyl...@spamcop.net writes:
Note that there is also code which is not written in a high level language
which uses gcc runtime library interfaces. For example, look at
libgloss/m68k/crt0.S , which uses __do_global_dtors .
That the
Joern Rennecke amyl...@spamcop.net writes:
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com:
Code that is neither Target Code nor an Independent Module is code
that has never been involved with gcc, and the license does not cover
it.
There is a lot of Target code that is, per definition, not an
Joern Rennecke amyl...@spamcop.net writes:
The license says that you have permission to propagate works when
certain conditions apply. It does not say that you do not have
permission if certain other conditions apply. Therefore, if certain
conditions apply, you have permission. It is not
Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com:
I'm not sure what your point is here. newlib is not under the GPL in
any case. It is not affected by the gcc runtime library license.
The old runtime library exception allowed you to distribute binaries that
both include
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com:
Joern Rennecke amyl...@spamcop.net writes:
No, this is not how Copyright works. In the absence of a license you may
not distribute the resulting work.
By my reading, you do have permission. It's right there in the
license.
You are arguing that the
Quoting Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org:
Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com:
I'm not sure what your point is here. newlib is not under the GPL in
any case. It is not affected by the gcc runtime library license.
The old runtime library exception allowed you to
2009/1/29 Joern Rennecke amyl...@spamcop.net:
Quoting Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org:
Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com:
I'm not sure what your point is here. newlib is not under the GPL in
any case. It is not affected by the gcc runtime library license.
The
Joern Rennecke amyl...@spamcop.net writes:
You seem to be saying that I could do incremental linking, first
linking libgcc against the Independent Modules, slapping my own
license on the partially linked work of Target Code (provided all
used pieces of libgcc are target code - that is hardly
Quoting Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com:
2009/1/29 Joern Rennecke amyl...@spamcop.net:
Quoting Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org:
Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com:
I'm not sure what your point is here. newlib is not under the GPL in
any case. It is
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com:
The incremental linking argument is irrelevant. Either it's OK
without that or it's not OK with that.
Well, if we disregard incremental linking, than the propagation
is clearly not allowed.
Combining the runtime Library with Independent Modules is
Joern Rennecke amyl...@spamcop.net writes:
Combining the runtime Library with Independent Modules is certainly
more specific than combining the runtime Library with Independent Modules
and anything else you feel like.
Moreover, a typical link will contain Target Code which has not been
Joern Rennecke amyl...@spamcop.net writes:
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com:
Joern Rennecke amyl...@spamcop.net writes:
So, assuming you may link in other stuff that is not an Independent
Module, that logically includes pieces derived from gcc itself if you
make sure that they
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com:
Yes, I believe that Independent Modules is intended to mean any
code. However, it needs to be careful to not grant additional rights
to other parts of gcc itself. And in any case the only code which it
can control is code which uses the runtime
The definition of 'independent module' is such that it does not include files
that make no use of any runtime interfaces at all. E.g. a newlib file
is an independent module if it uses a multiply and that multiply is
implemented as a libgcc function all by gcc, but if the multiply is
implemented
Joern Rennecke amyl...@spamcop.net writes:
The definition of 'independent module' is such that it does not include files
that make no use of any runtime interfaces at all. E.g. a newlib file
is an independent module if it uses a multiply and that multiply is
implemented as a libgcc function
24 matches
Mail list logo
