Hi Nathanael, and thanks for taking time to read the license ! Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyway, to answer *your* compatibility question, we would need more > information about exactly how this works; the GPL has a system library > exception, the LGPL has its linking exception, and GCC has its own special > exceptions. I didn't see any mention of the LGPL in GCC's license. Well, what to say more. My code links against both SystemC and GCC (the compiler itself, not the C/C++ standard library). I'd like to find a license for my code that allows me to distribute the wole. It seems I can distribute my code in source form under any free license, with scripts downloading and installing SystemC and GCC. It'd be nice if I could distribute all together, but this doesn't seem to be possible. > If you can get the SystemC creators to agree to a GPL dual-license, that > would probably be better. SystemC's original author (Synopsys) is a company selling a proprietary software, which is a concurrent of mine. I don't expect them to be really cooperative on that point ... Now, but this is not really the point of my mail : > 2.5 contains a weird line: > "Recipient agrees that Recipient shall not remove or alter any proprietary > notices contained in..." > > What the *heck* is a "proprietary notice"? Well, I suppose this is just a copyright notice. > 2.6b is insanely non-free, requiring that the "Recipient" help OSCI register > its trademarks. (?!?) I wouldn't use the program just due to that. It's non-free, but this is the license of the trademark, not the one of SystemC. Many free software (all free and commercial Linux distro ?) have a non-free license for their trademark. If you don't like it, 's/systemc/another word/' will do it. -- Matthieu
