Quoting Joe Buck :
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 04:34:09AM -0800, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
> 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 yo
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 04:34:09AM -0800, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
> > 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 distribu
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
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 library--the runti
Joern Rennecke writes:
> Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
>
>> Joern Rennecke 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 either don't need the GCC runtime, or that
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
Joern Rennecke 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 either don't need the GCC runtime, or that they
incorporate pieces of it. You'd only
Joern Rennecke 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 either don't need the GCC runtime, or that they
> incorporate pieces of it. You'd only need to make sure that
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
Joern Rennecke 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 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
> generated by Eligibl
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
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 certainly
more spec
Quoting Manuel López-Ibáñez :
2009/1/29 Joern Rennecke :
Quoting Paolo Bonzini :
Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
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 libra
Joern Rennecke 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 ever the
> case,
2009/1/29 Joern Rennecke :
> Quoting Paolo Bonzini :
>
>> Joern Rennecke wrote:
>>>
>>> Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
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 e
Quoting Paolo Bonzini :
Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
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 incl
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
Joern Rennecke 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 license must grant explicit permis
Joern Rennecke wrote:
> Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
>> 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 th
Joern Rennecke 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 necessary for
Joern Rennecke writes:
> Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
>> 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
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
Joern Rennecke 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 do
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
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 GCC runtime librar
Joern Rennecke 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 help her
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
Joern Rennecke writes:
Quoting Manuel López-Ibáñez :
2009/1/29 Joern Rennecke :
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 pro
Joern Rennecke writes:
> Quoting Manuel López-Ibáñez :
>
>> 2009/1/29 Joern Rennecke :
>>>
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 c
Quoting Manuel López-Ibáñez :
2009/1/29 Joern Rennecke :
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 t
2009/1/29 Joern Rennecke :
>
>> 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 file of th
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
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 arbitrary piece
Joern Rennecke 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 all by gcc, but
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 b
27 matches
Mail list logo
