* libiberty legal status ?
@ 1999-09-08 2:29 Marc Espie
1999-09-08 3:01 ` Jeffrey A Law
1999-09-30 18:02 ` Marc Espie
0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Marc Espie @ 1999-09-08 2:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: egcs
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'
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: libiberty legal status ?
1999-09-08 2:29 libiberty legal status ? Marc Espie
@ 1999-09-08 3:01 ` Jeffrey A Law
1999-09-08 3:11 ` Marc Espie
1999-09-30 18:02 ` Jeffrey A Law
1999-09-30 18:02 ` Marc Espie
1 sibling, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jeffrey A Law @ 1999-09-08 3:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc Espie; +Cc: egcs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: libiberty legal status ?
1999-09-08 3:01 ` Jeffrey A Law
@ 1999-09-08 3:11 ` Marc Espie
1999-09-08 3:21 ` Jeffrey A Law
1999-09-30 18:02 ` Marc Espie
1999-09-30 18:02 ` Jeffrey A Law
1 sibling, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Marc Espie @ 1999-09-08 3:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeffrey A Law; +Cc: egcs
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'
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: libiberty legal status ?
1999-09-08 3:11 ` Marc Espie
@ 1999-09-08 3:21 ` Jeffrey A Law
1999-09-30 18:02 ` Jeffrey A Law
1999-09-30 18:02 ` Marc Espie
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jeffrey A Law @ 1999-09-08 3:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc Espie; +Cc: egcs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: libiberty legal status ?
1999-09-08 3:21 ` Jeffrey A Law
@ 1999-09-30 18:02 ` Jeffrey A Law
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jeffrey A Law @ 1999-09-30 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc Espie; +Cc: egcs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: libiberty legal status ?
1999-09-08 3:11 ` Marc Espie
1999-09-08 3:21 ` Jeffrey A Law
@ 1999-09-30 18:02 ` Marc Espie
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Marc Espie @ 1999-09-30 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeffrey A Law; +Cc: egcs
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'
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: libiberty legal status ?
1999-09-08 3:01 ` Jeffrey A Law
1999-09-08 3:11 ` Marc Espie
@ 1999-09-30 18:02 ` Jeffrey A Law
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Jeffrey A Law @ 1999-09-30 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc Espie; +Cc: egcs
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* libiberty legal status ?
1999-09-08 2:29 libiberty legal status ? Marc Espie
1999-09-08 3:01 ` Jeffrey A Law
@ 1999-09-30 18:02 ` Marc Espie
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Marc Espie @ 1999-09-30 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: egcs
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'
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: libiberty legal status ?
@ 1999-09-08 14:17 Mike Stump
1999-09-30 18:02 ` Mike Stump
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Mike Stump @ 1999-09-08 14:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc.Espie; +Cc: egcs
> 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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: libiberty legal status ?
1999-09-08 14:17 Mike Stump
@ 1999-09-30 18:02 ` Mike Stump
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Mike Stump @ 1999-09-30 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marc.Espie; +Cc: egcs
> 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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1999-09-30 18:02 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1999-09-08 2:29 libiberty legal status ? Marc Espie
1999-09-08 3:01 ` Jeffrey A Law
1999-09-08 3:11 ` Marc Espie
1999-09-08 3:21 ` Jeffrey A Law
1999-09-30 18:02 ` Jeffrey A Law
1999-09-30 18:02 ` Marc Espie
1999-09-30 18:02 ` Jeffrey A Law
1999-09-30 18:02 ` Marc Espie
1999-09-08 14:17 Mike Stump
1999-09-30 18:02 ` Mike Stump
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).