Further on License agreements

Peter Naulls peter at chocky.org
Tue Jan 4 12:50:04 PST 2005


In message <4d2823b5edgdshaw at sagitta.demon.co.uk>
          Graham Shaw <gdshaw at sagitta.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <6a0091274d.peter at chocky.org>,
>    Peter Naulls <peter at chocky.org> wrote:
> 
> > What I'd like is an agreement by all contributors to Unixlib that their
> > past and future contributions (where possible) can be licensed under the
> > revised BSD licence.  You can read that here:
> 
> > http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license
> 
> I agree.

Thanks, that just leaves Peter Teichmann.  I've determined that David
Marston's contributions are not sizeable enough to warrant attribution
of copyright - for the purposes of such things, this is usually
considered to be 10 lines or more.

I've written a draft new copyright, which I've given to some people for
discussion.

I've written out some guidelines of its use under the licenses
covered by it.  One poentially controversial section relates to static
linking of LGPL code - especially when there's no real option to
dynamaically link, as is the case presently on RISC OS.  My
understanding of a strict reading of the LGPL is that any distributed
program statically linked with Unixlib will also be subject to the LGPL.
This is something that can't be avoided until such time that we have a
proper shared library system.  Of course, this situation is far from
being new, but it may be the first time it's explictly spelled out for
Unixlib.

-- 
Peter Naulls - peter at chocky.org        | http://www.chocky.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please Reply Properly - http://www.i-hate-computers.demon.co.uk/quote.html



More information about the gcc mailing list