Re: newlib license question

Re: newlib license question

[An, Douwa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3082 bytes --]

Hi Jeff, Brian


Thanks for your response.
Got your comment that our built newlib is not GPL related. 




Best Regards.



---Original---
From: "Jeff Johnston"<jjohnstn@redhat.com&gt;
Date: Wed, Jul 5, 2023 01:15 AM
To: "newlib"<newlib@sourceware.org&gt;;
Cc: "An, Douwa"<douwa.an@qq.com&gt;;"douwa.an"<douwa.an@montage-tech.com&gt;;
Subject: Re: newlib license question


IANAL either.



Some further clarification.&nbsp; See COPYING.NEWLIB and COPYING.LIBGLOSS for target-specific licensing for
a newlib/libgloss library built from current sources.



The fr30 is no longer GPL and this is stated in COPYING.NEWLIB.&nbsp; The linux
target is no longer in the newlib sources and as Brian noted, was LGPL.


For libgloss, the sparc-*leon*, crx-*, cr16-* targets have a GPL with exception license.&nbsp; The exception states
that code linked with the libraries built from said sources have no restrictions.&nbsp; See the rest of the license
for full explanation of other usages.


The top-level directory files are shared with other gnu projects such as binutils and gcc.&nbsp; Configuration and build files
used from there do not affect the licensing of the newlib/libgloss libraries that are built.



-- Jeff J.




On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 12:02 PM Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@shaw.ca&gt; wrote:

On 2023-07-03 21:30, An, Douwa wrote:
 &gt; I am struggling with the newlib license since i saw GPL license in git repo.
 &gt; It declares that newlib subdirectory is non-GPL related, however, there are GPL code in newlib root directory,&amp;nbsp;
 &gt; 1) can we confirm that newlib subdirectory is not infected?&amp;nbsp; which gnu official statement can certify it?&amp;nbsp;
 &gt; 2) if I only build baremetal metal newlib, is GPL code used? Can i say newlib I build is non GPL related?
 
 IANAL!
 
 It appears according to licence docs, that Cygwin and Linux targets have LGPL 
 components, fr30 target has GPL components, and standards texinfo docs have GFDL 
 components.
 
 The rest of newlib should be covered by BSD compatible licences allowing 
 commercial use, including files from a number of commercial corps; also newlib 
 is contributed to, supported and used by a number of commercial corps, including 
 ARM, HP, IBM, Intel, and RedHat, plus many other embedded and RT corps, as part 
 of corps commercial products, which may include proprietary modifications or 
 components not allowed by copyleft licenses.
 
 IANAL!
 
 -- 
 Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Calgary, Alberta, Canada
 
 La perfection est atteinte&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Perfection is achieved
 non pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à ajouter&nbsp; not when there is no more to add
 mais lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à retirer&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;but when there is no more to cut
 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;-- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Re: newlib license question

[Jeff Johnston]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2484 bytes --]

IANAL either.

Some further clarification.  See COPYING.NEWLIB and COPYING.LIBGLOSS for
target-specific licensing for
a newlib/libgloss library built from current sources.

The fr30 is no longer GPL and this is stated in COPYING.NEWLIB.  The linux
target is no longer in the newlib sources and as Brian noted, was LGPL.

For libgloss, the sparc-*leon*, crx-*, cr16-* targets have a GPL with
exception license.  The exception states
that code linked with the libraries built from said sources have no
restrictions.  See the rest of the license
for full explanation of other usages.

The top-level directory files are shared with other gnu projects such as
binutils and gcc.  Configuration and build files
used from there do not affect the licensing of the newlib/libgloss
libraries that are built.

-- Jeff J.


On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 12:02 PM Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis@shaw.ca> wrote:

> On 2023-07-03 21:30, An, Douwa wrote:
> > I am struggling with the newlib license since i saw GPL license in git
> repo.
> > It declares that newlib subdirectory is non-GPL related, however, there
> are GPL code in newlib root directory,&nbsp;
> > 1) can we confirm that newlib subdirectory is not infected?&nbsp; which
> gnu official statement can certify it?&nbsp;
> > 2) if I only build baremetal metal newlib, is GPL code used? Can i say
> newlib I build is non GPL related?
>
> IANAL!
>
> It appears according to licence docs, that Cygwin and Linux targets have
> LGPL
> components, fr30 target has GPL components, and standards texinfo docs
> have GFDL
> components.
>
> The rest of newlib should be covered by BSD compatible licences allowing
> commercial use, including files from a number of commercial corps; also
> newlib
> is contributed to, supported and used by a number of commercial corps,
> including
> ARM, HP, IBM, Intel, and RedHat, plus many other embedded and RT corps, as
> part
> of corps commercial products, which may include proprietary modifications
> or
> components not allowed by copyleft licenses.
>
> IANAL!
>
> --
> Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis              Calgary, Alberta, Canada
>
> La perfection est atteinte                   Perfection is achieved
> non pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à ajouter  not when there is no more to
> add
> mais lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à retirer     but when there is no more to
> cut
>                                  -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
>
>

Re: newlib license question

[Brian Inglis]

On 2023-07-03 21:30, An, Douwa wrote:
> I am struggling with the newlib license since i saw GPL license in git repo.
> It declares that newlib subdirectory is non-GPL related, however, there are GPL code in newlib root directory, 
> 1) can we confirm that newlib subdirectory is not infected?  which gnu official statement can certify it? 
> 2) if I only build baremetal metal newlib, is GPL code used? Can i say newlib I build is non GPL related?

IANAL!

It appears according to licence docs, that Cygwin and Linux targets have LGPL 
components, fr30 target has GPL components, and standards texinfo docs have GFDL 
components.

The rest of newlib should be covered by BSD compatible licences allowing 
commercial use, including files from a number of commercial corps; also newlib 
is contributed to, supported and used by a number of commercial corps, including 
ARM, HP, IBM, Intel, and RedHat, plus many other embedded and RT corps, as part 
of corps commercial products, which may include proprietary modifications or 
components not allowed by copyleft licenses.

IANAL!

-- 
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis              Calgary, Alberta, Canada

La perfection est atteinte                   Perfection is achieved
non pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à ajouter  not when there is no more to add
mais lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à retirer     but when there is no more to cut
                                 -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

newlib license question

[An, Douwa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 486 bytes --]

Dear,


I am struggling with the newlib license since i saw GPL license in git repo.


It declares that newlib subdirectory is non-GPL related, however, there are GPL code in newlib root directory, 


1) can we confirm that newlib subdirectory is not infected?  which gnu official statement can certify it? 


2) if I only build baremetal metal newlib, is GPL code used? Can i say newlib I build is non GPL related?


Thank a lot.


Best Regards,
Douwa