On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:00 AM, Leif Hedstrom <[email protected]> wrote: > On Nov 2, 2009, at 12:21 AM, Paul Querna wrote: > >> Short: glibc is actually compatible as a dependency, as we would >> consider it a "System Requirement" of TS, if you are running it on >> linux. (Just as Sun's libc is a system requirement if it is to run on >> Solaris). In Addition, with how glibc itself is licensed, it doesn't >> 'infect' code just running on top of it -- so it seems moot to me. > > > But that is not generally true for other "gnu" libraries under the LGPL I > assume?
It really depends if there are alternatives on FreeBSD for example that provide the same API, under a more liberal license :-) >> See <http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html> for all terrible details. >> >> If we used libev directly, I would generally consider that a direct >> dependency, and so it would need to be under a compatible license. > > Interesting. We have dependencies on various libraries, like TCL, Expat and > Berkeley DB. Andrew (since you are on top of this): Did you already go > through all such link/run time dependencies, and make sure the licenses are > compatible? TCL: good Expat: good BerkeleyDB: Not so good, but we generally have gotten away with just making BDB support optional, and adding other *DB backends.
