Re: Freeness of vague Synopsys license
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:11:28AM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Andreas Bombe writes ("Freeness of vague Synopsys license"):
> > Keeping these files would be "nice to have" but not a requirement. Users
> > with legacy VHDL projects using Synopsys libraries would need to find
> > and install these libraries themselves if they were removed.
>
> Even better: that means that in the very unlikely even that someone
> would disagree with our interpretation, we could simply remove these
> files again without having to untangle a lot of within-Debian
> rdepends.
>
> But even if that weren't the case I think the necessarily implication
> is that permission was granted (and the copyrightholders are likely to
> be estopped from claiming otherwise because everyone has been relying
> on that implied permission for, presumably, years).
Thank you (and Ben). I think I'll go with leaving it in and letting
ftpmasters decide.
A bigger problem were the core IEEE libraries that received a
more-but-insufficiently permissive license in the years since the last
ghdl upload to Debian (from "written permission required for basically
everything" to "free to distribute and use but explicitly no changes
except those permitted in the VHDL standard"). But thankfully there's
now GPL reimplementations for those.
Andreas
Reply to: