On Dec 4, 2005, at 7:31 AM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 06:33:13PM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Dec 3, 2005, at 5:23 PM, David N. Welton wrote:
Perhaps the difference is that with the bits and pieces of gcc that
you
get, you don't even realize that you have them, which is different
from
noting that you have several .jar files floating around in your
download that aren't under the same terms as the rest of the code.
I think a different way to say it, one that is clearer for my
thinking, is that there is no dependence in the code, or on having to
use GCC - a user can take the source and recompile with some other
compiler to get working software.
Sure, but the ASF has chosen to ship software using GPL+linking
exception
licensed code, and has beeing doing so for years, as I have shown,
without any
negative results. The ASF has a choice not to ship the binaries, or to
ship them built with a different compiler, or to write their own
compiler,
but it chose not to, because obviously GPL+linking exception is
good enough
for what the ASF (and any $PROPRIETARY_SOFTWARE_VENDOR using gcc)
does, or
it would not be doing it.
So, could the board please ratify the existing, and well-working
practice of
the ASF shipping code using GPL+linking exception licensed code as
obviosly, trivially OK? That should not be too hard to get done
quickly.
Pragmatism over ideology, and all that. That's why we are here, right?
Let me start by noting (hopefully unnecessarily at this point) that
I'm very interested in solving the licensing issues.
That said, I think that to be fair, we need to distinguish between
"using" in the sense of what GCC is doing - a tool outside the scope
of effort of the project enabling some behavior in a standard and non-
intrusive way (just like we don't care about the license of the OS we
run on), and "using" in the sense of developers of a project making a
conscious decision to design and implement software with a dependency.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
