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

Re: Is SystemC license compatible with the GPL ?

Hi (gcj mailinglist CCed),

On Sat, 2004-05-15 at 11:12, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 04:31:27PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >> No.  GCC has different parts under different licenses (although all are
> > >> GPL-compatible).  Parts are GPL, parts are LGPL, parts are GPL with
> > >> special libgcc exception, etc.
> > > 
> > > I don't believe there are any LGPL parts.
> > 
> > libf2c/libU77
> > portions of libiberty
> > portions of libjava
> > some test cases
> Hmm, what a mess. I wonder how that interacts with the other
> parts; I suspect some of it degrades to the GPL, which could actually
> be problematic. The debian/copyright file is wrong (again) too.

In the case of libjava (libgcj/GNU Classpath) this is a bug.
I see the following three files (distributed under the LGPL and on which
the FSF does not hold the copyright) in libgcj which aren't in GNU


They come from gnu.regex which was relicensed from LGPL to the GNU
Classpath GPL + exception clause when they were integrated into GNU
Classpath proper, but these files were not part of that integration.
They should not be necessary since they are also not part of GNU
Classpath proper.

There should be no release with these files included though (3.4 didn't
contain integrated regexp support yet). Thanks for noticing, we will fix
this before 3.5 is released. Let us know if there are any other issues
like these or when there is any doubt about the copyright/distribution



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: