| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 9431.1 | one opinion | KITCHE::schott | Eric R. Schott USG Product Management | Tue Apr 08 1997 13:44 | 41 |
| >
> This came up in USENET discussions.
>
> Linux/Alpha has been able to run statically linked Digital Unix
> binaries for quite some time. I personallly encouraged people
> to try out this capability because it allows to run compute intensive
> programs compiled by the good Digital compilers at maximum performance.
>
> Now somebody brought up the question of whether this is legal. The
> specific question is:
>
> a) Am I permitted to run executables built with Digital Unix compilers
> on a another operating system, to which the compiler license itself
> does not apply (Linux) ? I would assume, yes.
I would assume so also..
>
> b) Does this also apply to the statically linked-in Digital Unix
> libraries ? This is where I'm fuzzy about the legal aspects.
> If libc and the like is ok, what about things like DXML ?
If you use licensed code from any source (digital, 3rdparty)..etc,
the license is only good for the one machine the license was
sold on...So running a staticly linked binary has 2 issues:
a) the code itself (ie is the program licensed)
b) The Digital UNIX libraries (which are licensed).
In short, technically running Digital UNIX libraries on
another machine is probably a violation of licenses.
I'm not a lawyer, and the above are my interpretations...
For official status, this should be sent to Dave Pushee in Digital
UNIX licensing.
|
| 9431.2 | Sent to David | KAMPUS::NEIDECKER | EUROMEDIA: Distributed Multimedia Archives | Tue Apr 08 1997 14:30 | 1 |
|
|
| 9431.3 | I would *guess* it's legal and traditional and good. | PERFOM::HENNING | | Wed Apr 09 1997 00:23 | 9 |
| Compiler groups have usually pushed hard to make sure that it is
understood by all affected parties that you are at liberty to run
images on machines that are NOT licensed and that you are at liberty to
link statically or to even install the run-time-only option free of
charge.
The wrinkle of running it in a very different environment than the one
originally intended is interesting. But methinks the company that
pushes FX!32 would be wise not to turn over this rock.
|
| 9431.4 | | QUARRY::neth | Craig Neth | Wed Apr 09 1997 10:22 | 6 |
| Well, if Digital owned the rights to all of the code in question, I think I
would agree with .3. But I suspect we do not. There is lots of stuff
in libc with other companies names in the copyright headers. And every
DIGITAL UNIX license sale includes tribute to some of these other folks...
Contacting the lawyers is the right thing to do, alas.
|
| 9431.5 | | TLE::REAGAN | All of this chaos makes perfect sense | Wed Apr 09 1997 10:39 | 5 |
| But the SPD wording for the compiler's says you can move the RTLs
free of charge to other Digital UNIX systems. Linux isn't Digital
UNIX so we're walking on thin (melted?) ice.
-John
|
| 9431.6 | | SMURF::KNIGHT | Fred Knight | Wed Apr 09 1997 12:25 | 15 |
| Also remember the license is a machine license. So, if you
have a license to run DU on the machine, but later bring up
Linux on that SAME machine, I think the license is still valid.
This is why you can move compiled code from 1 DU machine to
another. The license of the "new" machine is what makes this
OK, and doesn't have anything to do with the source machine.
If however you bought just raw H/W with no S/W license at all
then I'd say the ice broke (and you are running unlicensed
S/W).
Of course, I'm not a lawyer and these are just my personal
opinions.
Fred
|
| 9431.7 | Digital compiler run-time licenses are part of the Digital UNIX license | SMURF::PUSHEE | | Fri Apr 11 1997 16:13 | 12 |
| The last couple of notes have it right.
The right to use the RTL for Digital's compilers is granted
as part of the Digital UNIX license.
A system with a Digital UNIX license may use the RTL whether or
not Digital UNIX is actually operating on that system. A
Digital UNIX licensed system that happens to be running Linux
would be one example of this.
A system without a Digital UNIX license should not be using
the RTL.
|
| 9431.8 | | TLE::REAGAN | All of this chaos makes perfect sense | Mon Apr 14 1997 10:25 | 7 |
| UH, can you point me to the some wording? What compiler RTLs
does the Digital UNIX license talk about? I would hope just
the ones "bundled" with Digital UNIX (libc, libots, etc.). The
ones that are not-bundled (libfor, libpas, etc.) should just be
covered by the appropriate language's license/SPD.
-John
|
| 9431.9 | | SMURF::PUSHEE | | Tue Apr 15 1997 13:55 | 8 |
| The run-time libraries are distributed with Digital UNIX, so that SPD does
discuss them.
The "Development Environment" of the Digital UNIX SPD includes paragraphs about
run-time libraries for Fortran, C++, Pascal, and others.
The language SPDs, (at least Fortran and Pascal) contain a section about Run-Time
Library Redistribution
|