Lpc2000

On Friday 18 November 2005 08:39, Tom Walsh wrote:
> Charles Manning wrote:
> >>I am myself thinking of using FAT32. I found this driver (GPL)
> >>that already provides FAT32 read support:
> >>http://www.robs-projects.com/filelib.html
> >>I am investigating if it is possible to add write support to it.
> >
> >I'd like to remind y'all of the implications of GPL.
> >
> >In a small embedded environment (ie where you do not have OS-level
> >partitioning) If you use code under GPL, then you will need to make the
> > rest of your code freely available if you distribute any product that
> > contains this code.
>
> This is somewhat correct, not entirely.  We don't need to get into a
> copyright discussion here, there has been enough written about GPL vs
> LGPL licensing on other sites.  What you need to understand is that if
> you create software using GPL'ed tools, that _does not_ automatically
> place your code under the GPL (or LGPL).  If you bind (link) GPL or LGPL
> code into your code, then _yes_, you are bound by the copyright of the
> code you linked in.
>
> The MMC DOS FAT filesystem is _not GPL_, the only license on that is
> from public domain and I only ask that you keep my name in it, as well
> as that of the original author.  This is merely respect, not a license.
> The original code was public domain, I'd like to keep it unrestricted use.
>
> NewLib on the other hand, has various licenses, most of which are BSD
> style.  There is _no LGPL or GPL licensed code_ within NewLib!  You do
> have some requirements, read the COPYING.NEWLIB in the NewLib sources to
> see what your obligations are.  Basically, they wish you to give credit
> to the original authors and to disclaim any Fitness-for-Use (legalese to
> avoid entanglements).
>
> What is your point?  To create confusion over using GNC gcc tools to
> build code?  Create confusion over using MMC FAT DOS over a commercially
> licensed product?  What?


Hey I never created the confusion, but clearly there are a bunch of people 
that do not understand the GPL and are confused.

It was not me that said this code was GPL and I have not checked whether it 
is. Whoever made the statement that is GPL clearly does not understand what 
GPL means (if indeed it is not GPL).

I use GPL code a lot (using some right now as I type this) and I have 
written/published a lot of GPL code, as well as LGPL code and I released some 
code under LGPL for a particular reason. I **know** that a lot of my code is 
used in ways that violate GPL which does piss me off some, but not enough to 
chase them. I always respect other people GPL licensing.

What I wanted to point out was that if you're going to use GPL code then be 
mindful of your obligations. It is not a free lunch. Respect that people are 
allowing you to use their code with some limitations. Most folk are 
reasonable and you can often negotiate alternative requirements if needed.