On Sep 13, 2012, at 8:06 AM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sep 12, 2012, at 9:51 AM, C. Bergström <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 09/12/12 05:39 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> DESCRIPTION >>> >>> * There was some licensing FUD discussed on the list, mostly to promote >>> a "rationale" for moving the project elsewhere and/or releasing >>> stdcxx under a different license. This has (hopefully) been clarified. >> You willfully ignore the point and there is a clear need for an actionable >> item here. Should someone email legal-discuss or what's the correct process >> for this? > > What actionable item? > >> --------------------------------------- >> Once again - This is not about *my* views, your views or your cousin bob's >> views. If/when STDCXX ships to a large community of users their views may >> differ - At the very least the FSF has clearly stated their views which >> gives *others* concern. This point of objection needs to be resolved and we >> appreciate your help in doing so. >> > Is this all about your point of view that even though Apache stdcxx is designed as a library, esp as a system library, that GPLv2 programs cannot use and link to it because the FSF says that the ALv2 is incompatible w/ GPLv2? And all this despite the fact that GPLv2 makes specific accommodations for system libraries... Is that the actionable item of which you speak? You want the ASF to "verify" something in the GPLv2?
