gnupic: Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC


Previous by date: 5 Apr 2006 09:09:22 +0100 Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC, Colm O' Flaherty
Next by date: 5 Apr 2006 09:09:22 +0100 Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC, Colm O' Flaherty
Previous in thread: 5 Apr 2006 09:09:22 +0100 Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC, Colm O' Flaherty
Next in thread: 5 Apr 2006 09:09:22 +0100 Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC, Colm O' Flaherty

Subject: Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC
From: Alex Holden ####@####.####
Date: 5 Apr 2006 09:09:22 +0100
Message-Id: <511B85C9-9989-4165-B58C-AD875140A582@linuxhacker.org>

On 5 Apr 2006, at 08:23, Colm O' Flaherty wrote:
> I'm dubious sure that what Microchip (in your links) say about the  
> legality of using the library/header files/ linker scripts from the  
> C30 package is actually correct, or just misinformed.  Their  
> offering is based on the gnu cc compiler; is packaged and sold as a  
> unit, and so *is* fully governed by the GPL.  They've even included  
> the standard header in their source code..

They can put whatever license they want on their C library, library  
headers, and linker scripts if they wrote them from scratch, as they  
are not linked to any of the GCC libraries or executables. There is  
precedent for this - Rowley's Crossworks for ARM for example.

There's nothing to stop you using the compiler itself (which is  
GPLed) with an open source C library and your own linker scripts, but  
if they say you can't use their library and linker scripts without  
paying a license fee, you should respect their wishes.

> In short, the MPLAB C30 package *is* a derivative work of the GNU  
> cc compiler, and so Microchip cannot impose additional licence  
> constraints, as they seem to be doing. They are also required to  
> make available the full source for their package (not just the gnu- 
> gcc portion), including the source for the licence manager, etc.

That's incorrect. As long as the license manager program doesn't  
contain any GPL code, they don't need to place it under the GPL. The  
fact that it's distributed in a "package" along with some GPLed  
programs isn't relevant. See the stuff in the GPL about  
"aggregation". I'm not quite sure why you would want the source to  
the license manager though.

> Subroutines for insn output for Microchip dsPIC30.

This file appears to be a part of GCC itself, which is clearly GPLed.  
The issue is with the C library and linker scripts, not the compiler.

-- 
------------ Alex Holden - http://www.alexholden.net/ ------------
If it doesn't work, you're not hitting it with a big enough hammer



Previous by date: 5 Apr 2006 09:09:22 +0100 Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC, Colm O' Flaherty
Next by date: 5 Apr 2006 09:09:22 +0100 Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC, Colm O' Flaherty
Previous in thread: 5 Apr 2006 09:09:22 +0100 Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC, Colm O' Flaherty
Next in thread: 5 Apr 2006 09:09:22 +0100 Re: [gnupic] GCC port for PIC, Colm O' Flaherty


Powered by ezmlm-browse 0.20.