This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See crosstool-NG for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 24 April 2012 05:19, Yann E. MORIN <yann.morin.1998@free.fr> wrote: > Per, All, > > Firts off, the usual disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, you should consult a > competent lawyer and/or your company's legal departement for definitive > advice. > > On Friday 20 April 2012 10:16:00 Per Arnold Blaasmo wrote: >> If I use Crosstool-ng to build a GNU Toolchain and redistribute that >> with my own product. >> >> Do we need to have the license files in the finished build tree? > > That's my understanding that the license texts for GPL and LGPL components > be made available alongside with the distributed binaries. The same goes > with the license texts for the BSD-like components. > > Whether you want to include these license texts in the same archive (a > tarball or any other packaging of your choice), or as files residing > side-by-side with the distributed archive, is up to you to decide. > > I for one would suggest that you bundle in the same archive, because: > ?- you have the guarantee that the recipient of the archive does get > ? ?the license texts, without requiring additional downloads; > ?- if you distribute the archive on a physical medium, you are sure > ? ?that the license texts wil actually *be* on the distribution medium; > ?- the license texts will follow any subsequent distribution of the > ? ?archive, if the recipient chooses to do so. > >> Should crosstool-ng copy those in to the finished tree? > > That's my opinion that crostool-NG should *not* do that automatically > for you. There are a few reasons for my position: > ?- you and/or your lawyer have to fully understand the licensing terms > ? ?of each component, and decide and your own what those licenses imply; > ?- some components are multi-licensed; for example part of gcc are > ? ?GPLv3+ while some other parts are LGPLv3+; > ?- the licensing terms for a specific component may vary with the > ? ?version of this component; for example gcc 4.2 and earlier were GPLv2+ > ? ?and LGPv2.1+, while gcc 4.3 and later are GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+; > ?- the licensing terms may change depending on the options you used > ? ?when building the toolchain (I do not have a example coming to mind > ? ?right now); > ?- you anyway have to make available the complete and corresponding source > ? ?code for the components that are used in the toolchain (at least those > ? ?that are under copyleft licenses, such as GPL or LGPL). > > So, in theory, crosstool-NG *could* copy some of the license texts for you, > but you would always have to manually check that the correct licenses have > been copied, and that nothing was missing, and that a license text that does > not apply was not copied. > >> What about crosstool-ng's license? >> Do we need to add that to the finished built toolchain? > > This is a tricky question. > > The toolchain is generated by crosstool-NG, so the license of crosstool-NG > does *not* apply to the toolchain (the same way that the license of gcc > does not apply to the binary generated by gcc). > > However, the license of crosstool-NG explicitly states that crostool-NG is > what the GPL names "scripts used to control compilation and installation > of the executable." In my understanding, for example in the gcc context, > this sentence applies to the scripts used to build gcc. I believe that > crosstool-NG is what the GPL refers to in the sentence quoted above. > > So, it is my understanding that, if you distribute a toolchain built with > crosstool-NG, you have to pass the complete and corresponding source code > for the crosstool-NG you used to build said toolchain. > > Also, it is my understanding that the crosstool-NG's .config file is part > of the afore-mentioned scripts, and that you have to distribute it as if > it were part of crosstool-NG. This is already done automatically for you > by crosstool-NG, which installs the script bin/<tuple>.ct-ng.config in > the toolchain install directory. > > Also, do not forget that some components in the toolchain may also use a > .config-like file; for example uClibc has a .config file, so you must > provide it along with the uClibc sources, and eglibc can use config files > which you also must provide with eglibc's sources. > > So, with respect to crosstool-NG, I would suggest that you put the archive > of the crosstool-NG you used, prominently side-by-side with the archive > of the toolchain you distribute. > > You may of course decide to distribute a single archive with everything in > it: > ?- the toolchain, in binary form > ?- the crosstool-NG sources > ?- the crosstool-NG's .config > ?- the components' complete and corresponding source codes > ?- the many license texts For reference, we distribute: * The binaries themselves * A tarball holding all source tarballs used in the build * The crosstool-NG scripts used to build them * A README that covers reproducing the binaries using the source tarballs and build scripts * Enough information to reproduce the build host * The full license text of all licenses as a page in the installer We handle the .config problem via samples: the 'linaro-arm-linux-gnueabi' sample holds the config used to build the binary. See: https://launchpad.net/linaro-toolchain-binaries/+download We should start including the licenses in $doc as well. -- Michael -- For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |