On 2013-12-23, David Koontz wrote: > Makes a great argument for binary distribution under the Affero > GPLv3. As Tristan noted earlier a binary work comprised of gcc and a > ghdl front end the gcc compiler is distributed under the terms of the > GPLv3, which allows adhesion to the Affero GPLv3.
What would that accomplish? The GHDL source code is available under GPLv2-or-later. Anybody can trivially turn that source code into a binary distribution under GPLv3-or-later. Releasing another binary distribution under a more restrictive license (Affero) does not change this. A more effective approach would be to use the Affero GPLv3 license for new releases of the GHDL source code. > I'd personally use those clause 13s for a binary distribution of the > composite or aggregate work (a gcc version of ghdl). The affect is > to remove the ghdl developer from directly being a target for support > requests from users of a business such as yours. Additional terms > might include limitations on liability and suitability for use. Why do you need clause 13? None of the GPL licenses require support as a license condition. All GPL licenses explicitly disclaim warranty and liability. > The ghdl mcode version is distributed solely under the the GPLv2. Is it? The source of mcode is distributed under GPLv2-or-later according to various README files in the GHDL source tree. If mcode is GPLv2-only, it would be difficult to distribute it as part of GHDL. Joris.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Ghdl-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss
