Russ Allbery dixit:
>Thorsten Glaser writes:
>> If not… well, since snapshot.d.o is an official service now, I’d say,
[…]
>Hm, that's an interesting point, indeed.
>> Are those source packages (that would not otherwise be kept in the
>> archive) released along with “stable”, despite having no bi
On Thu, 23 May 2013, Steve Langasek wrote:
> FWIW, my understanding is that this is one of the issues that GPLv3
> attempted to bugfix with its clarification of the "System Libraries"
> exception. So to the extent that this is an issue, I believe it only
> applies to works that are GPLv2 only.
Rig
Thorsten Glaser writes:
> There’s something else about Built-Using:
> Are those source packages (that would not otherwise be kept in the
> archive) released along with “stable”, despite having no binary
> packages?
Yes, I believe that's how the implementation works.
> If not… well, since snaps
Russ Allbery dixit:
>of the GPLv2, the GPLv2 itself requires that all of the *source* for the
>binary be distributed under the GPLv2. And the libgcc *source* is only
>available under the GPLv3, and the runtime exception doesn't allow one to
>distribute the *source* under different terms, only the
Steve Langasek writes:
> FWIW, my understanding is that this is one of the issues that GPLv3
> attempted to bugfix with its clarification of the "System Libraries"
> exception. So to the extent that this is an issue, I believe it only
> applies to works that are GPLv2 only.
Indeed, anything in
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 01:34:08PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> In a discussion of mksh-static (see http://bugs.debian.org/709382), the
> question of GPL compliance for the source code of the components of libgcc
> and libc that are incorporated into binaries came up. mksh-static of
> course links
Russ Allbery dixit:
>If we do need to preserve source for the libcc and libc components
>incorporated into binary builds, that's going to mean Built-Using for
>nearly the whole archive, and a lot of complexity on the DAK side. That's
>obviously not very desirable. We would rather decide that we
Russ Allbery dixit:
>At the time, though, the assumption was that Built-Using would be a fairly
>rare thing that would only be used for those few score packages that were
>Build-Depending on *-source packages.
And statically linked executables, since that made it into the
Policy wording; or possi
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> mksh-static of course links statically and therefore pulls in
>> substantial portions of library source, but there are parts of libgcc
>> and possibly libc that are always incorporated into binaries, even ones
>> that are dynamically linked.
> Are
Russ Allbery wrote:
>mksh-static of
> course links statically and therefore pulls in substantial portions of
> library source, but there are parts of libgcc and possibly libc that are
> always incorporated into binaries, even ones that are dy
Thorsten Glaser writes:
> (Were legal reasons the driving force behind adding Built-Using in the
> first place?)
Yes, although not this particular issue. There are a set of packages that
we build that use other packages as source during the build process. The
most common are cross-compilation
Russ Allbery dixit:
>debian-legal isn't really the correct venue. It's just a discussion list
Ah, okay.
>going to start with leader and see if Lucas has an opinion about where to
>start with making decisions here. One option available to leader is to
>ask for an opinion from external legal cou
Hi Lucas,
In a discussion of mksh-static (see http://bugs.debian.org/709382), the
question of GPL compliance for the source code of the components of libgcc
and libc that are incorporated into binaries came up. mksh-static of
course links statically and therefore pulls in substantial portions of
Thorsten Glaser writes:
> Ah. Got it.
> GPLv2 §3 says:
> | control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
> | special exception, the source code distributed need not include
> | anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
> | form) with the major co
Jakub Wilk writes:
> It could be worse, of course:
> GPLv2-only and GPLv3+-with-runtime-lib-exception = undistributable
Fairly sure this isn't true, given that the runtime-lib-exeception lets
you link with completely proprietary licenses.
You have permission to propagate a work of Target C
tl;dr: last paragraph.
Dixi quod…
>Russ Allbery dixit:
>
>>If this license analysis is correct, then we have to do this for every
>>binary on the system that's covered by the GPL v2, since I believe some
[…]
>The csu are included, and TTBOMK some of it comes from GCC
>and some from the libc in q
Russ Allbery dixit:
>If this license analysis is correct, then we have to do this for every
>binary on the system that's covered by the GPL v2, since I believe some
Hmm.
>stub code from libgcc is *always* included statically in every binary,
>even if the binary is built dynamically. (Or at leas
Thorsten Glaser writes:
> Russ Allbery dixit:
>> If not, I'm confused. I don't see any reason why dietlibc's license
>> would change something about libgcc's license.
> dietlibc is GPL, so a derivate is also GPL.
> The mksh-static and lksh binaries, when linked against dietlibc, consist
> of d
Russ Allbery dixit:
>> The dietlibc licence does require for libgcc to be added there
>> (GPL without exception clause).
>
>I think you mean that dietlibc requires that *dietlibc* be added, right?
No, I meant it like that.
>If not, I'm confused. I don't see any reason why dietlibc's license wou
* Russ Allbery , 2013-05-23, 01:04:
The dietlibc licence does require for libgcc to be added there (GPL
without exception clause).
I think you mean that dietlibc requires that *dietlibc* be added,
right?
If not, I'm confused. I don't see any reason why dietlibc's license
would change somet
Thorsten Glaser writes:
> Russ Allbery dixit:
>> In the meantime, please don't add Built-Using for libgcc. The libgcc
>> license does not require it, due to the runtime exception, and
>> essentially
> The dietlibc licence does require for libgcc to be added there
> (GPL without exception clause
Russ Allbery dixit:
>In the meantime, please don't add Built-Using for libgcc. The libgcc
>license does not require it, due to the runtime exception, and essentially
The dietlibc licence does require for libgcc to be added there
(GPL without exception clause).
bye,
//mirabilos
--
> Hi, does an
22 matches
Mail list logo
