On 23 Dec 2013, at 12:55 pm, Joris van Rantwijk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is it?
> The source of mcode is distributed under GPLv2-or-later according to
> various README files in the GHDL source tree.
Thanks for the mention.
david_koontz@Macbook: find . -iname README -print -exec grep -i later \{\} \;
./libraries/README
./README
files hierarchy here. The later are used to directly build a compiler and
./testsuite/vests/README
./testsuite/vests/vhdl-93/ashenden/README
./testsuite/vests/vhdl-93/billowitch/compliant/README
./testsuite/vests/vhdl-93/billowitch/disputed/README
which is defined later.
./testsuite/vests/vhdl-93/billowitch/README
./testsuite/vests/vhdl-93/README
./testsuite/vests/vhdl-ams/ashenden/README
./translate/gcc/README
(at your option) any later version.
./translate/mcode/README
(at your option) any later version.
so the translate/gcc/README is a copyright notice for the ghdl distribution (a
a result of the dist.sh sources script invocation). The translate/mcode/README
does the same thing for the Windows version of it's dist.sh execution.
While the top level COPYING:
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
...
----
The ghdl source code is distributed under GPLv2 (but can be redistributed via
or-later).
The reason a composite/aggregate work comprised of say gcc-4.8.2 and ghdl is
covered under the GPLv3 is because that's the license newer versions of gcc are
distributed under.
Every binary ghdl mcode version I have distributed has been under the GPLv2.
Can you identify a windows version distributed under a later version?
That the combined gcc/ghdl aggregate is distributed under GPLv3 says I can
invoked clause 13. Meaning I could add something to the distribution covered
un the AGPLv3 and cause the combination to be under clause (section) 13 of the
AGPLv3, regarding interaction through a network. This requires the service
provider to provide source (6. a) - d)).
> 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.
AGPLv3 Clause 13:
13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the
Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users
interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version
supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding
Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source
from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary
means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source
shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3
of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the
following paragraph.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have
permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed
under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single
combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this
License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work,
but the work with which it is combined will remain governed by version
3 of the GNU General Public License.
Further under clause (section 7) of the GPLv3, having authored something added
I can add terms:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you
add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of
that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:
a) Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the
terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or
b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or
author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal
Notices displayed by works containing it; or
c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or
requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in
reasonable ways as different from the original version; or
d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or
authors of the material; or
e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some
trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or
f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that
material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of
it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for
any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on
those licensors and authors.
Where requiring a different limitation on liability can put the service
provider's 'customers' on notice that the original distributor of the binary
package) is not liable for the network interacting service provided. The
intent is to not to provide support to someone not distributing source.
And this can easily be circumvented by someone doing their own binary
distribution, but does not involve me. I can tell them to seek support from
their service provider otherwise.
A candidate for something included under the AGPLv3 might be a program for
supplying help chock full of 'ask your service provider' or 'fix by building
from source (provided by your service provider). Using something as a service
mark in on line help,..
Make it valuable enough and it'd be easier to simply distribute source and
allow someone to build and install it. Now imagine that's something like an
error message interpreter or something highly desirable, like say a VHDL code
generator that doesn't readily stand alone. The effect is too encourage
adherence to the the freedoms outlined in the GPL by giving something in return
(a carrot). Integrated so that it can't simply be pared out (allowing
distribution under the GPLv3 alone).
If you're not going to preserve those freedoms for those interacting through a
network service the effect is the same as distributing under say a BSD type
license. And if someone isn't will to abide by that they can do the work
themselves.
> A more effective approach would be to use the Affero GPLv3 license for
> new releases of the GHDL source code.
Yes, but I'm not the author of either gcc nor ghdl. I can't affect the terms
of those licenses without adding some of value to the aggregate (binary)
distribution. And none of this had any meaning before someone providing ghdl
as a cloud service.
My interest in preserving the basic freedoms preserved by the GPL requires I
contribute something. In legal parlance I'm otherwise not a party of interest
in a matter of equity, I'd have no standing. If what I were to add wasn't
valuable enough it could be eliminated readily. There's other things of value
like an error browser that recommends corrections and or methods for
accomplishing things (e.g. aggregate initialization, multi dimensional arrays -
which the GHW waveform format will convey, something that sets up displayed
signal lists for waveforms), configuration generators, ...
You could go crazy just with simulator addons.
Throw enough on there and distributing source seems an easy price for an
network connected service provider.
_______________________________________________
Ghdl-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss
