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
Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de 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
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 would
Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de 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,
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 least
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
Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de 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
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
Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de 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
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
Package: mksh
Version: 46-1
Severity: serious
Dear Maintainer,
The handling of built-using is wrong. It is not meant to encode the
compiler used, nor binutils or kernel headers should be recorded there
It is specifically for building against -source packages and for hacks
like ia32libs where
Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de writes:
In this specific case, there are one to two statically linked programs
there. In some cases, they link statically against a GPL licenced
library. So my current interpretation of the text from Policy above says
that Built-Using is indeed required there.
12 matches
Mail list logo
