EmbeddedRelated.com
Forums
The 2024 Embedded Online Conference

[ANNOUNCE] CHSM: Statecharts implementation for C++ and Java

Started by Paul J. Lucas May 15, 2004
Ian Bell wrote:

> David Brown wrote: > >> >> "Ian Bell" <itb@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:2h12rmF7qoj5U1@uni-berlin.de... >>> David Brown wrote: >>> snip >>> >>> > Just for the sake of completness, I'll answer >>> > your points below. >>> > >>> > >>> >> The generated code is under no license whatsoever. However, >>> >> the run-time library is still covered by the GPL. >>> >> >>> > >>> > I assume this is a library that is used by the generated code (i.e., >>> > if >> I >>> > were to use CHSM to generate code for an embedded system, I would run >> the >>> > library on the embedded system too). In that case, it is this license >>> > that >>> > is critical, since any code using it also has to be gpl'ed. That >>> > means the generated code is implicitly gpl'ed, along with any other >>> > user code >> in >>> > the application. >>> > >>> >>> I have not read all this thread so forgive me if this is out of place, >>> but it seems to be a common misconception that code that dynamically >>> links to >> a >>> gpl'd library must itself be gpl'd. AFAIK this is not the case. A good >>> example is Kylix which links to a whole bunch of standard linux >>> libraries but is closed source. >>> >>> Ian >> >> You are, I think, incorrect here - code that links staticly or dynamicly >> to >> a gpl'ed library must itself be gpl'ed. It is a different matter with >> lgpl'ed libraries - the LGPL is specifically written for libraries, and >> allows dynamic linking with code under any license, while static linking >> (or >> modifications of the library) must be lgpl'ed or gpl'ed. The standard >> linux libraries, along with many other libraries, use the lgpl and thus >> allow dynamic linking with closed-source software. >> >> Of course, this is almost certainly beside the point - in embedded >> systems, it is far more common to use static linking, and therefore >> neither lgpl nor >> gpl libraries can be used along with other-licenced code. This is one of >> the reasons for the existance of newlib - the standard gcc c library is >> lgpl, and therefore cannot be used in non-open source statically linked >> code, while newlib uses a BSD-style license which allows such linking. >> >> Disclaimer - IANAL, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong... > > I still find GPL confusing but: > > Section 0 says, amongst other things "This License applies to any program > or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder > saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public > License." > > Section 0 later says "Activities other than copying, distribution and > modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope." > > And then "The act of running the Program is not restricted" > > Which to me means that *using* the programme e.g a library by linking > dynamically to it, is specifically permitted, though I may be wrong. > > Ian
However, the GPL FAQ makes it clear that linking in any way to a GPL library is legally considered a derivative work so now I see why most libraries are released under the lesser GPL which specifically permits this. As always these things are determined by the legal definitions of words which may or may not make sense to ordinary folks. Ian
David Brown <david@no.westcontrol.spam.com> wrote:

> I assume this is a library that is used by the generated code (i.e., if I > were to use CHSM to generate code for an embedded system, I would run the > library on the embedded system too).
Yes.
> In that case, it is this license that is critical, since any code using it > also has to be gpl'ed.
No it doesn't. If you don't want to GPL your code, buy a commercial license from us.
> Your post said "might be negotiated", although your site is more concrete. > However, you haven't made the distinction as to whether it is the CHSM > program or the runtime library that is avaiable with different licenses.
It all is.
> Providing the CHSM program with a commercial license will allow other tool > vendors to integrate it in their closed-source systems, at a cost, which is > a nice option to offer.
Thank you.
> But it is the runtime library that is important - the GPL'ed version is only > of serious use in accademic or hobby (or during testing and internal > developement, etc.) circles.
Or other GPL'd programs.
> If there is also a commercial license available for the library, then it is > useful for almost any application, although your site should make the terms > clear (i.e., is it a one-off license, or royality based?)
It's whatever we and the clients find most agreeable.
> That would imply that it is the runtime library that is available with a > commercial license?
Yes. Why is this so hard to understand? - Paul
"Paul J. Lucas" wrote:
> David Brown <david@no.westcontrol.spam.com> wrote: > >> I assume this is a library that is used by the generated code >> (i.e., if I were to use CHSM to generate code for an embedded >> system, I would run the library on the embedded system too). > > Yes. > >> In that case, it is this license that is critical, since any >> code using it also has to be gpl'ed. > > No it doesn't. If you don't want to GPL your code, > buy a commercial license from us.
Which is exactly the sort of conditions I have attached to my own hashlib package. You get to try everything out at no cost. If all is well you negotiate mutually acceptable conditions, possibly including the transfer of filthy lucre. -- Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
"Ian Bell" <itb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2h178nF7og1vU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Ian Bell wrote: > > > > > I still find GPL confusing but: > > > > Section 0 says, amongst other things "This License applies to any
program
> > or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder > > saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public > > License." > > > > Section 0 later says "Activities other than copying, distribution and > > modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its
scope."
> > > > And then "The act of running the Program is not restricted" > > > > Which to me means that *using* the programme e.g a library by linking > > dynamically to it, is specifically permitted, though I may be wrong. > > > > Ian > > However, the GPL FAQ makes it clear that linking in any way to a GPL
library
> is legally considered a derivative work so now I see why most libraries
are
> released under the lesser GPL which specifically permits this. As always > these things are determined by the legal definitions of words which may or > may not make sense to ordinary folks. > > Ian
Most people find such legal documents confusing (me included - my post was based on the faq rather than the license itself). I really don't know what the legal status of documents like the gpl faq is, but they do make the spirit of the license clear.

The 2024 Embedded Online Conference