Thank you Walter.
Perhaps I should be more specific about the usage of the headers.
The included headers are distributed verbatim. The headers are included
verbatim (stored as a constant string) into the binary. The headers
provide physical constants and physical concepts to a model compiler. In
case the user does not have a set of headers of his own, the binary
spits out the verbatim copy to allow the model to be processed. In other
words, the user has rights over the LGPL portion and can bypass the
non-LGPL pass if he/she wishes to.
The LGPL 3 seems to have a clause for combined work situation like the
above, but the LGPL 2.1 does not. Confusing.
Would a change of ADMS license help here?
On the argument that the headers are facts (not copyrightable). On the
reply by Geoffrey he disagrees that the "disciplines.vams" is just a
list of facts.
I read about the clean-room implementation. One has to read the LRM to
be able to use the language,anyone that touches the LRM is contaminated
and excluded from a clean-room implementation. I don't mean it
ironically. I don't see how to handle it.
At the moment I only see four options:
- write a clean-room implementation (if by all means possible)
- remove the headers and push the burden to the users
- try to discuss an alternative license with Accellera
- argue that the content of the headers are "not copyrightable"
I really hope we can find a suitable way to distribute the original
standard headers to the users.
If not I will think about ways not to anger and frustrate the users
offering a tool that does not work out of the box.
Please advise.
Guilherme
00-Book-VAMS.fm
