[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[avr-gcc-list] Re: avr-libc license issues

From: Theodore A. Roth
Subject: [avr-gcc-list] Re: avr-libc license issues
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 16:27:32 -0600 (MDT)

Hi All,

I agree with Marek that the pure-GPL is not ideal in our situation. The
Modified-BSD license (no advert) should be suitable, but will need to
check to make sure. I think the FSF prefers the BSD since it makes things 
explicit while just saying public domain doesn't (???). I wish I knew more 
about all this, I'm just this hacker guy, you know?

I also agree with Marek that we should not have to ever change the license 
again once it is done.

I'm going to have to shelf this for a few weeks since I'm moving across 
country. I didn't expect these problems when I tried to get the project on 
savannah so I thought I'd have time to get things set up before I had to move.
If anyone is anxious to get this finished up, they are welcome to it. 
Otherwise, I will handle it once I'm am settled in the new place.

Ted Roth

On Sat, 4 May 2002, Marek Michalkiewicz wrote:

>> My request for the project was rejected by the savannah people because of
>> issues with the licenses of various files (see forwarded message below).  
>Hmm, Debian has no problem distributing avr-libc - but the FSF people
>are so paranoid about these issues...
>>      http://www.amelek.gda.pl/avr/libc/avr-libc-20020203.tar.gz
>>      I see a complex mixture of files with no copyright or license notice,
>> files with a license notice that says it is not copyrighted but no indication
>> of who is legally empowered to make such a decision (which would require to
>What is the correct (FSF-approved) way of saying that something is public
>domain (completely free to do anything, not even BSD license - I don't
>want _any_ license conflicts in the future)?  I can change all my notices,
>but would prefer not to have to do it once again...
>> add a copyright notice and would therefore be contradictory with the license
>> notice ;-), files with no copyright notice but a pointer to a readme file
>> that states it is released under the GNU GPL but also relaxes the GNU GPL
>> to make it look like the GNU LGPL.
>Pure GPL is too restrictive - at least, my intent is to allow linking this
>library into all kinds of applications, free or proprietary.  The relaxed
>license is borrowed from libgcc.
>> itself. For files with "no copyright" you can release them under the
>> Modified BSD license (it has the same effect as what is usually called
>> "public domain").
>Well, the BSD license (without advertising clause) is fine for me, but
>isn't public domain simpler?

avr-gcc-list at http://avr1.org

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]