I don't know if this has always been the case though. I've been in situations where company lawyers have forbidden the use of GCC to build shipping products because of uncertainty in this matter.
--
Darin Johnson
Caution! Under no circumstances confuse the mesh with the
interleave operator, except under confusing circumstances!
The GPL can't disallow that. The holder of the copyright still holds the copyright. He can distribute his work under as many different licenses as he wants to.
That disagrees with everything I've read in and about the GPL.
Wha? I don't remember anything in the GPL that prohibits the owner of the copyright from doing anything under other licenses
-- and I don't understand how it could. The GPL is a set of terms imposed _by_ the owner of the copyright.
Sounds like bunk to me.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I just bought
at FLATBUSH from MICKEY
visi.com MANTLE!
But if a second person modifies the code, the new resulting second revision belongs to both people, neither of which can assign a different license to a third party. Let's say the original author completely revamps the code into a third revision. The original author may be able to give away the original source under a new license, but he is no longer able to do that with the third revision. If he removes the second author's changes in order to create a fourth revision, that fourth revision is still a derivative work of both parties.
Essentially the original author loses control. Which isn't a bad thing if the intent is to create open source software (collaborative work).
--
Darin Johnson
"Look here. There's a crop circle in my ficus!" -- The Tick
Could be, but that wasn't what I thought was being discussed. The original author can still license the original work under any license he pleases. I thought that was what you claimed was prohibited.
If the third revision contains material for which he doesn't hold the copyright, then he only has the rights granted to him by the person who does hold the copyright.
If he wanted to do that, he should start with his orginal version, so that there is no question of the "third" revision containing any work for which he doesn't hold the copyrights.
No. He still has complete control over his original work. He does not have control over the other person's work -- but he never did, so he didn't loose anything.
I still don't see what the original author has lost...
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! YOW!! I am having
at FUN!!
visi.com
I like to toggle test points and watch those on an oscilloscope. I monitor events and the duration of interrupt routines this way.
Casey
That's not unsimilar to our methodology except we use the same code as the finished job will, not test code. Using the serial port for diagnostic messages has a major impact on execution speed which I very much wish to avoid.
Without running the same code at the same speed you're not really exercising the final product.
-- Regards, Albert
---------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Research, Inc. The Embedded Systems Experts
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True...
The author loses nothing - but he does not magically gain control over code written by other people. The copyright owner is free to release his own code (source or binary) to anyone he wants using any licence he wants. I can write some code, add the gpl and send the source to Grant Edwards. I can then take the same code and add a licence that says the user may not drink Pepsi while running the code, and sell it to you for a thousand dollars. That's perfectly within my rights. However, I can't stop Grant passing his gpl'ed copy on to you. And if he makes changes to the code, he can pass them on to both of us - but I can't incorperate these changes into the no-Pepsi licenced version unless Grant says I can.
For companies which rely on dual-licenced software (such as MySQL - you can get it in gpl'ed version, or as a non-gpl'ed version which you can then combine with other non-gpl source), this is a vital issue - they simply cannot accept patches and modifications from outside unless the patch author agrees to sign over the copyright of the patch (as many will do for trivial code snippets). If someone wants to make a major change to the code, then it must be maintained as a seperate fork under a seperate name. This also applies to other projects where the main authors like to keep the copyright of all code (which is the case for all FSF GNU projects, and many large open-source projects).
It may not always have been the case, and you must still look into the libraries (the main C library is not part of gcc), as things like glibc, newlib, and target-specific libraries can all be different. However, this could also be the case of lawyers not really understanding the details, and thus choosing to err on the side of caution.
1 per 10,000 last I heard.
George ============================================== Send real email to GNEUNER2 at COMCAST dot NET
Yes I agree. I was talking about debugging in the very preliminary stages where you're not even sure if the oscillator is clocking the chip properly.
Bob
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.