On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 20:58:59 +0100 Joris van Rantwijk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2015-11-19, Attila Kinali wrote: > > BTW: maybe it would be the right time to poke the debian people > > again to update the packages, as the current ones are over 3 years old. > > Maybe an NMU would be in order as well. > > We have tried this and failed. The problem is: a fully functional GHDL > distribution is not free software according to Debian guidelines due to use > of IEEE library code. Packaging GHDL without IEEE libraries is possible in > principle, but it would not be useful for most VHDL programmers. It definitly does not make sense to distribute ghdl without the libray code. Am I right that GHDL needs both the source code and a compiled version of the libraries? The only discussion I could find is http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal/28046 Is there any other that I have missed? If not, then I'll try to ask debian again, because the whole discussion is pretty much misinformed on what the license is and why it's there. The current "license" text in the standard is: ---schnipp--- 16.8.5.2 Allowable modifications Vendors of tools conforming to this standard shall not modify the package declarations. However, a vendor may provide package bodies for any of the packages in which subprograms are rewritten for more efficient simulation or synthesis, provided that the behavior of the rewritten subprograms remains the same under simulation. The behavior of the original and rewritten subprograms are the same if, for any combination of input values, they return the same return values. The text of messages associated with assertions may differ in the rewritten subprogram. The package bodies for the NUMERIC_BIT and NUMERIC_STD packages declare a constant named NO_WARNING that has the value FALSE. A user may set NO_WARNING to TRUE and reanalyze the package body to suppress warning messages generated by calls to the functions in these packages. For this reason: * A tool vendor who rewrites the package body shall preserve the declaration of the NO_WARNING constant to allow a user to suppress warnings by editing and reanalyzing the package body. * A simulation tool vendor who provides a preanalyzed version of the package body should also provide a mechanism for suppressing warning messages generated by the package functions. ---schnapp--- If this is not good enough for debian to make at least a non-free package with the ghdl libraries,.... Attila Kinali -- Reading can seriously damage your ignorance. -- unknown _______________________________________________ Ghdl-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss
