Clarification of distribution rights for build
This commit is contained in:
parent
1a1856c3af
commit
54fd4848ae
25
README.md
25
README.md
|
@ -304,3 +304,28 @@ Note that the example adds a `#define CONFIG_SBRK_BASE` in the
|
||||||
`config.h`. This is only for illustration purpose, since modern
|
`config.h`. This is only for illustration purpose, since modern
|
||||||
systems attempt to randomize address space, making the value
|
systems attempt to randomize address space, making the value
|
||||||
returned by `sbrk(0)` different with each run.
|
returned by `sbrk(0)` different with each run.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## Redistribution
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The 'build' project is released under the GNU General Public License
|
||||||
|
version 3. The project author's reading of said license is that it only
|
||||||
|
"contaminates" derivative products, but not products created *using* the
|
||||||
|
product. In other words:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
* Creating derivative software, e.g. a 'nanotoconf' project that uses
|
||||||
|
'build' code, requires you to comply with the GPL, and in particular
|
||||||
|
to redistribute your code in source form. The fact that it's really
|
||||||
|
hard to distribute makefiles in binary form should help you comply
|
||||||
|
with this anyway :-)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
* Building software using 'build' does not make that software GPL, any
|
||||||
|
more than building it using GCC or GNU Make. I believe that 'build'
|
||||||
|
can legally be used for proprietary software or for software using
|
||||||
|
any other open-source license.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
As long as I (Christophe de Dinechin) am the sole author / maintainer
|
||||||
|
of this software, this interpretation will prevail. If you believe
|
||||||
|
that I am in error in my understanding of the GPL v3, please send me
|
||||||
|
e-mail or raise an issue on GitHub or GitLab, and I will add a
|
||||||
|
licensing exception to that effect.
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue