uClibc copyright and licence audit

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 10:35:32AM -0500, Kevin Day wrote:
> On 9/18/07, Mark Brown <broonie at sirena.org.uk> wrote:

> > In the definition of the term "Source code" in clause 0 it says:

> >     For a library, complete source code means [...] plus the scripts
> >     used to control compilation and installation of the library.

> So what you are saying is that if some genious found a way to make
> Microsoft Visual Studio C++ compile the uClibc source code, that would
> suddenly put Microsoft Visual Studio C++ under the LGPL v2.1 license?

Note that it says "scripts used to *control* compilation" - this is
generally taken to cover things like Makefiles or Visual Studio project
files rather than make, gcc or Visual Studio.  It's rather common to
distribute binaries of GPLed and LGPLed things that have been built with
non-free tools.

Obviously, IANAL and so on.

-- 
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/uclibc/attachments/20070918/9e6a3e92/attachment-0002.pgp