On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 05:34:34PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> f...@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) writes:
> > Robert Dewar writes:
>
> >> Discussion of FSF policy on licensing issues is also off-topic for
> >> this mailing list.
>
> > Perhaps, yet the libgcc exception licensing issues were quit
f...@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) writes:
> Robert Dewar writes:
>> Discussion of FSF policy on licensing issues is also off-topic for
>> this mailing list.
> Perhaps, yet the libgcc exception licensing issues were quite
> prominently discussed right here, and not too many months ago.
> Florian
On 07/25/2009 10:53 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
The run-time library is GPL version 3 or
later, which is incompatible with GPL version 2, so it is not
permitted to link this with the GPLv2-only program and distribute the
result. (Previous discussions have centered on infringing GCC's
license, so t
Robert Dewar writes:
> [...]
>>> b) you should ignore all such discussions, since they invariablly
>>>include lots of legal-sounding opinions from people who are not
>>>lawyers and don't know, and often have significant misconceptions.
>>
>> This is not about legal issues. It's about FSF
2009/7/27 Alfred M. Szmidt :
> These three points could be included in a standard answer to
> licensing questions posted to g...@. Invariably, all such threads
> are a waste of time and bandwidth. Perhaps we can include the
> standard answer in some webpage so we can copy+paste or just poin
Dave Korn wrote:
Robert Dewar wrote:
b) you should ignore all such discussions, since they invariablly
include lots of legal-sounding opinions from people who are not
lawyers and don't know, and often have significant misconceptions.
:) We have a name for that on the cygwin list:
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Robert Dewar:
b) you should ignore all such discussions, since they invariablly
include lots of legal-sounding opinions from people who are not
lawyers and don't know, and often have significant misconceptions.
This is not about legal issues. It's about FSF poli
> a) discussions of licensing issues are off topic on this mailing list
>
> b) you should ignore all such discussions, since they invariablly
> � include lots of legal-sounding opinions from people who are not
> � lawyers and don't know, and often have significant misconceptions.
* Robert Dewar:
> b) you should ignore all such discussions, since they invariablly
>include lots of legal-sounding opinions from people who are not
>lawyers and don't know, and often have significant misconceptions.
This is not about legal issues. It's about FSF policy. If I wanted
leg
Robert Dewar wrote:
> b) you should ignore all such discussions, since they invariablly
>include lots of legal-sounding opinions from people who are not
>lawyers and don't know, and often have significant misconceptions.
:) We have a name for that on the cygwin list:
http://cygwi
2009/7/27 Robert Dewar :
> a) discussions of licensing issues are off topic on this mailing list
>
> b) you should ignore all such discussions, since they invariablly
> include lots of legal-sounding opinions from people who are not
> lawyers and don't know, and often have significant misconcep
b) you should ignore all such discussions, since they invariablly
include lots of legal-sounding opinions from people who are not
lawyers and don't know, and often have significant misconceptions.
Indeed I'm not answering to Florian's latest message, because I'm not
sure what he misunderstood o
There is so much incorrect information in this thread that
I would not even try to start to fix it, since it would
just cause more confusion than is already there. I would
just remind people that
a) discussions of licensing issues are off topic on this mailing list
b) you should ignore all such
Please take this up with le...@gnu.org.
* Paolo Bonzini:
>> But if I change the run-time library, I still have to license those
>> changes under the GPLv3 if I want to distribute them, right?
>
> Yes. But if you change the runtime library and link something else
> with the modified runtime library, the "something else" does not fall
>
But if I change the run-time library, I still have to license those
changes under the GPLv3 if I want to distribute them, right?
Yes. But if you change the runtime library and link something else with
the modified runtime library, the "something else" does not fall
automatically under the G
* Joe Buck:
> Doesn't matter, because the runtime library is not under GPLv3. It's
> under GPLv3 plus the runtime restriction. That combination is more
> permissive than GPLv2 (because of the exceptions it makes). Therefore,
> as far as I can tell, there is no conflict; the combined program has
> * Joe Buck:
>
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 01:53:40PM -0700, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> Kalle Olavi Niemitalo discovered that as an operating system vendor,
> >> you are not allowed to distribute GPL version 2 programs if they are
> >> compiled with GCC 4.4. The run-time library is GPL version 3 or
* Arnaud Charlet:
>> > If the latter (the license includes something like "either version 2
>> > of the License, or (at your option) any later version"), then
>> > nothing prevents you from distributing the program under GPLv3+
>> > instead of GPLv2+.
>>
>> Right, but we've got some stuff which i
> GPLv2 (I tried to stress by writing "GPLv2-only").
Understood.
> > If the latter (the license includes something like "either version 2
> > of the License, or (at your option) any later version"), then
> > nothing prevents you from distributing the program under GPLv3+
> > instead of GPLv2+.
>
* Arnaud Charlet:
>> Eh, this exception doesn't change that the GPLv2 program perceives the
>> GPLv3 as incompatible. Why would it?
>
> Is it GPLv2 or GPLv2+?
GPLv2 (I tried to stress by writing "GPLv2-only").
> If the latter (the license includes something like "either version 2
> of the Licen
> Eh, this exception doesn't change that the GPLv2 program perceives the
> GPLv3 as incompatible. Why would it?
Is it GPLv2 or GPLv2+? If the latter (the license includes something like
"either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version"),
then nothing prevents you from distr
On 2009-07-25 18:57:25 -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> That's incorrect. The runtime library is GPLv3 or later, but with an
> *exception* that permits linking not only with GPLv2 programs, but
> also with proprietary programs.
If the runtime library is GPLv3 or later, shouldn't programs linked
with it s
* Joe Buck:
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 01:53:40PM -0700, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> Kalle Olavi Niemitalo discovered that as an operating system vendor,
>> you are not allowed to distribute GPL version 2 programs if they are
>> compiled with GCC 4.4. The run-time library is GPL version 3 or
>> later
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 01:53:40PM -0700, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Kalle Olavi Niemitalo discovered that as an operating system vendor,
> you are not allowed to distribute GPL version 2 programs if they are
> compiled with GCC 4.4. The run-time library is GPL version 3 or
> later, which is incompat
Kalle Olavi Niemitalo discovered that as an operating system vendor,
you are not allowed to distribute GPL version 2 programs if they are
compiled with GCC 4.4. The run-time library is GPL version 3 or
later, which is incompatible with GPL version 2, so it is not
permitted to link this with the GP
26 matches
Mail list logo
