|
Posted on:
|
Hello I have a question about licence restrictions then using WinARM. Can I build proprietary code with newlib and newlib-lpc libraries? What restrictions are there? Thanks...
|
Posted on:
|
Alex wrote: > I have a question about licence restrictions then using WinARM. WinARM is just a collection. Of cause any licenses of the components in WinARM are still valid. > Can I build proprietary code with newlib and newlib-lpc libraries? > What restrictions are there? See: http://sources.redhat.com/newlib/COPYING.NEWLIB and the comments at the beginning of the newlib-lpc source-files
|
Posted on:
|
I am only using a few libraries, such as libc.a and libgcc.a. Are these part of newlib? If so where can I find what specific copywrite statements I need. The header files (such as string.h) list no copywrite information. The Redhat link only lists all possible.
|
Posted on:
|
Pete Gasper wrote: > I am only using a few libraries, such as libc.a and libgcc.a. Are these > part of newlib? If so where can I find what specific copywrite > statements I need. The header files (such as string.h) list no copywrite > information. The Redhat link only lists all possible. The libc.a and libm.a supplied with WinARM are newlib (but beware, the same names are used for GNU libraries, which are LGPL libraries, and possibly other standard library implementations - because GCC uses these names by default if -nostdlibs is not used). libgcc.a is part of GCC itself because the compiler generates code that makes calls to code in this library - think of it as minimal runtime support. As I understand it building code with GCC does not make that code subject to GPL restrictions - GCC is a code generator, the generated code does not contain GPL code, it is simply a translation of your source. Code that statically links newlib code is freely distributable under any licence terms you choose. You should check the licences of any other code individually. I stress this is my understanding of the situation - I am not a lawyer, you must satisfy yourself that you are operating within the terms of the license. Clifford
|
Posted on:
|
Clifford Slocombe wrote: > source. Code that statically links newlib code is freely distributable > under any licence terms you choose. You should check the licences of any That seems correct, provided the copywrite notices are left intact and included in the manual. Is that your understanding?
Watch this topic
Disable multi-page view