Re: libiberty legal status ?

Re: libiberty legal status ?

[Mike Stump]

> Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:28:13 +0200
> From: Marc Espie <Marc.Espie@liafa.jussieu.fr>

> While browsing thru libiberty code, I noticed a rather disturbing problem.
> Some of the files there have been bodily lifted from other GNU tools,
> verbatim.

> This means that they retain a full GPL copyright notice, whereas 
> libiberty license is supposed to be LGPL.

> So, suddenly, the legal status of libiberty is completely unclear.

> I presume the logical course would be to change the copyright notice
> of these files, which only the FSF can do, if I read things right...

libiberty should not be used to satisfy requirements from libgcc.a or
any of libgcc style runtimes.  We should either seek to get the FSF to
relax them a bit, or start up a libiberty for the runtime (new name)
that has the libgcc clause on it and only that.

The licensing needs to be stable (for a decade at a time), and well
thought out and exceptionally clear.  Anything less just causes
hysteria and confusion and allows people to FUD gcc.  gcc needs to be
FUD resistant.

Re: libiberty legal status ?

[Mike Stump]

> Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:28:13 +0200
> From: Marc Espie <Marc.Espie@liafa.jussieu.fr>

> While browsing thru libiberty code, I noticed a rather disturbing problem.
> Some of the files there have been bodily lifted from other GNU tools,
> verbatim.

> This means that they retain a full GPL copyright notice, whereas 
> libiberty license is supposed to be LGPL.

> So, suddenly, the legal status of libiberty is completely unclear.

> I presume the logical course would be to change the copyright notice
> of these files, which only the FSF can do, if I read things right...

libiberty should not be used to satisfy requirements from libgcc.a or
any of libgcc style runtimes.  We should either seek to get the FSF to
relax them a bit, or start up a libiberty for the runtime (new name)
that has the libgcc clause on it and only that.

The licensing needs to be stable (for a decade at a time), and well
thought out and exceptionally clear.  Anything less just causes
hysteria and confusion and allows people to FUD gcc.  gcc needs to be
FUD resistant.

Re: libiberty legal status ?

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 19990908112813.A28184@liafa1.liafa.jussieu.fr >you write:
  > While browsing thru libiberty code, I noticed a rather disturbing problem.
  > Some of the files there have been bodily lifted from other GNU tools,
  > verbatim.
  > 
  > This means that they retain a full GPL copyright notice, whereas 
  > libiberty license is supposed to be LGPL.
  > 
  > So, suddenly, the legal status of libiberty is completely unclear.
  > 
  > I presume the logical course would be to change the copyright notice
  > of these files, which only the FSF can do, if I read things right...
libio/libstdc++ do not suck in any of the files that are GPL'd.  Only those
which are LGPL or public domain.

See Jason's patch from a while back.

The legal status of libiberty is clear.  Read the copyrights -)

jeff

Re: libiberty legal status ?

[Marc Espie]

On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 03:57:54AM -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:

> The legal status of libiberty is clear.  Read the copyrights -)


Could you be MORE explicit ?

I read the copyright info in the libiberty directory, and this is not
clear at all to me.

- there are several copyright notices in evidence in distinct files.
As far as I know, this means some of these files are GPL, not LGPL.

- I can't find what would apply in COPYING.LIB.
 3. doesn't work, as all the copyright notices were not changed,
 7. doesn't apply as well. I don't see any prominent notices.

-- 
	Marc Espie		
|anime, sf, juggling, unicycle, acrobatics, comics...
|AmigaOS, OpenBSD, C++, perl, Icon, PostScript...
| `real programmers don't die, they just get out of beta'

Re: libiberty legal status ?

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 19990908121008.A20588@liafa1.liafa.jussieu.fr >you write:
  > On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 03:57:54AM -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
  > 
  > > The legal status of libiberty is clear.  Read the copyrights -)
  > 
  > 
  > Could you be MORE explicit ?
Some  components are GPL, some are public domain, some are lgpl.  You have
to read each file to determine its status.

  > - there are several copyright notices in evidence in distinct files.
  > As far as I know, this means some of these files are GPL, not LGPL.
Right, it is a mix.  What is so hard to understand here?

  > - I can't find what would apply in COPYING.LIB.
Those which are gpl'd.

Why is this so hard to understand?
jeff

libiberty legal status ?

[Marc Espie]

While browsing thru libiberty code, I noticed a rather disturbing problem.
Some of the files there have been bodily lifted from other GNU tools,
verbatim.

This means that they retain a full GPL copyright notice, whereas 
libiberty license is supposed to be LGPL.

So, suddenly, the legal status of libiberty is completely unclear.

I presume the logical course would be to change the copyright notice
of these files, which only the FSF can do, if I read things right...
-- 
	Marc Espie		
|anime, sf, juggling, unicycle, acrobatics, comics...
|AmigaOS, OpenBSD, C++, perl, Icon, PostScript...
| `real programmers don't die, they just get out of beta'

Re: libiberty legal status ?

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 19990908121008.A20588@liafa1.liafa.jussieu.fr >you write:
  > On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 03:57:54AM -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
  > 
  > > The legal status of libiberty is clear.  Read the copyrights -)
  > 
  > 
  > Could you be MORE explicit ?
Some  components are GPL, some are public domain, some are lgpl.  You have
to read each file to determine its status.

  > - there are several copyright notices in evidence in distinct files.
  > As far as I know, this means some of these files are GPL, not LGPL.
Right, it is a mix.  What is so hard to understand here?

  > - I can't find what would apply in COPYING.LIB.
Those which are gpl'd.

Why is this so hard to understand?
jeff

Re: libiberty legal status ?

[Marc Espie]

On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 03:57:54AM -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:

> The legal status of libiberty is clear.  Read the copyrights -)


Could you be MORE explicit ?

I read the copyright info in the libiberty directory, and this is not
clear at all to me.

- there are several copyright notices in evidence in distinct files.
As far as I know, this means some of these files are GPL, not LGPL.

- I can't find what would apply in COPYING.LIB.
 3. doesn't work, as all the copyright notices were not changed,
 7. doesn't apply as well. I don't see any prominent notices.

-- 
	Marc Espie		
|anime, sf, juggling, unicycle, acrobatics, comics...
|AmigaOS, OpenBSD, C++, perl, Icon, PostScript...
| `real programmers don't die, they just get out of beta'

Re: libiberty legal status ?

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 19990908112813.A28184@liafa1.liafa.jussieu.fr >you write:
  > While browsing thru libiberty code, I noticed a rather disturbing problem.
  > Some of the files there have been bodily lifted from other GNU tools,
  > verbatim.
  > 
  > This means that they retain a full GPL copyright notice, whereas 
  > libiberty license is supposed to be LGPL.
  > 
  > So, suddenly, the legal status of libiberty is completely unclear.
  > 
  > I presume the logical course would be to change the copyright notice
  > of these files, which only the FSF can do, if I read things right...
libio/libstdc++ do not suck in any of the files that are GPL'd.  Only those
which are LGPL or public domain.

See Jason's patch from a while back.

The legal status of libiberty is clear.  Read the copyrights -)

jeff

libiberty legal status ?

[Marc Espie]

While browsing thru libiberty code, I noticed a rather disturbing problem.
Some of the files there have been bodily lifted from other GNU tools,
verbatim.

This means that they retain a full GPL copyright notice, whereas 
libiberty license is supposed to be LGPL.

So, suddenly, the legal status of libiberty is completely unclear.

I presume the logical course would be to change the copyright notice
of these files, which only the FSF can do, if I read things right...
-- 
	Marc Espie		
|anime, sf, juggling, unicycle, acrobatics, comics...
|AmigaOS, OpenBSD, C++, perl, Icon, PostScript...
| `real programmers don't die, they just get out of beta'