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] |
(note - I'm cross-posting this to gnu.misc.discuss in case anyone there has any additional insight) On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Gunter Magin wrote: > > Back in 97 I got an answer from a Hightec sales representative eagerly > explaining, that I could very well get the source code for the parts of the > GNU chain, which are under the GPL, e.g. gcc, libgcc, binutils, gdb), > however, this would cost me a fee ("Bereitstellungsgebuehr") of DM 1000.- > > Other parts, like startup code, linker scripts, online help files, etc, are > proprietary, and are not available in source. The latest news is you would > get the target monitor in source for adaption to your target HW, but not > shure under what licence condition. > > Let me cite (translated) from that email: > > GPL does not say, that those who have modified GPL sources, are obliged > to give the source code away on request. GPL does just say, that > sources must be made available for a handling fee for binaries, which > have been given away. I think that's basically correct, although they have the choice to sell or give away the binaries. But perhaps most importantly, the GPL forbids them from taking away your right to share the sources with others once they give them to you. So, if just one person bought the Hightec C165 toolchain, and got the sources, then if they wanted to they could share them with everyone else on this list. Writing linker scripts isn't that hard. If they're indeed not covered then someone could write their own. But don't even look at the Hightec scripts if you decide to do that, or better yet, let someone else write them. > (Note: I am neither a translater nor a lawyer, so this might not be 100% > accurate on what they actually said, but it's the spirit of the statement) > > I am not shure, if Cygnus' policy is different at all. They also have > ports, which will not go into the public tree, but they give away (read: > sell) to selected customers. Those customers certainly will get source code > for that port as well, which in turn they will have to give it to endusers > on request, once they give the binaries to end users. It seems that its possible to follow the letter of the GPL without following the spirit of it. In the worst case, I imagine a company might develop enhancements to some GNU software, then sell it for a huge amount of money to a few select customers, and because those customers shelled out so much money for the software they don't want to share it with anyone else. Thus the software remains trapped in a cabal of vendors and greedy customers (while still following the letter of the GPL), and the developers on the outside end up either duplicating work or giving up on certain ports. I'm not accusing Cygnus or Hightec of such behavior, I'm just saying it seems possible given my interpretation of the GPL. > Now an interesting question is: > > If I get the sources, say for GNU C166, for the mentioned fee, am I allowed > to post them? I would say yes, as long as you don't post any proprietary linker scripts or other things that aren't part of the GNU-licensed package(s). -Jamie ================================================================ Jamie Guinan Blue Button Solutions guinan@bluebutton.com http://www.bluebutton.com ================================================================ _______________________________________________ New CrossGCC FAQ: http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC _______________________________________________ To remove yourself from the crossgcc list, send mail to crossgcc-request@cygnus.com with the text 'unsubscribe' (without the quotes) in the body of the message.