This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@cygnus.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Results of "downloading compressed program images" request

    > We use the ordinary GPL for some of our libraries.  In fact, that is
    > our default choice, for a library just as for any other program.

    I think the GPL is perfect for software which is "complete" unto itself.
    The problem is for libraries and the implact the license has upon the
    intended user domain.

I understand the effect that you're talking about, when the GPL is
used on a library.  You're calling it a problem, and from the point of
view of someone wanting to develop proprietary software, it could only
be a problem.  But if we instead consider the consequences for the
free software community, it can lead to benefits as well as problems.

Whether the overall result is a problem for the free software community
depends on other factors, and those factors are what I wrote about in
the previous message.

      But if the choice of license is unpalatable to the embedded
    community, it will simply not be used.  

If the developers of proprietary embedded software dislike a library,
the worst possible consequence is that the library won't be used in
proprietary embedded applications.  That doesn't mean it won't be used
at all.  What proprietary embedded application developers do is not
the most important issue for the GNU project.  Our mission is to
provide good free operating systems for humans to use directly on
their computers.  If embedded application developers use some of our
software too, that is good, but it isn't the point of it all.

    Good example.  Is there currently an example of a library which falls into
    this category?

The GNU readline library is a good example.  I would guess that the
GPL'd GNU readline library is never used in embedded software, but
that is no skin off our back.  It gives free programs such as BASH and
GDB a command editing capability, and that's what really matters
concerning GNU readline.

I think that GNU MP is also in this category; the only reason we use
the LGPL for it is that the author insisted.  I think that it would
be better to have stayed with the GPL for this library.