From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 119088 invoked by alias); 21 Feb 2019 17:35:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact jit-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: Sender: jit-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 119064 invoked by uid 89); 21 Feb 2019 17:35:33 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Checked: by ClamAV 0.100.2 on sourceware.org X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=france, France, lawyer, Hx-languages-length:1905 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on sourceware.org X-Spam-Level: X-HELO: relay7-d.mail.gandi.net Received: from relay7-d.mail.gandi.net (HELO relay7-d.mail.gandi.net) (217.70.183.200) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 17:35:31 +0000 X-Originating-IP: 193.248.54.187 Received: from [192.168.1.10] (lstlambert-656-1-266-187.w193-248.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.248.54.187]) (Authenticated sender: basile@starynkevitch.net) by relay7-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0DE0C20009; Thu, 21 Feb 2019 17:35:27 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: licensing questions To: Paulo Matos , jit@gcc.gnu.org References: From: Basile Starynkevitch Message-ID: <781b72e4-79af-4007-a39f-aae1f1220881@starynkevitch.net> Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2019 00:00:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-q1/txt/msg00062.txt.bz2 On 2/21/19 6:23 PM, Paulo Matos wrote: > Hi, > > libgccjit is released with GCC and therefore GPLv3. > This seems to mean, from my relatively low knowledge in this area, that > all libraries linking to libgccjit to create bindings and libraries and > applications linking to this library are forced into GPLv3. Why would that be a problem? I see that as an advantage! > > I though LGPL was created with the purpose of stopping the viral spread > of GPLv3. Was it the authors decision to make it GPLv3 instead of LGPL - > which would have been, I guess, more flexible? I am not a lawyer, and I am not member of FSF or of GCC steering committee. (In the past, I did contribute some plugin-related code of GCC). But libgccjit is a derivative of, and now a part of, GCC, and GCC is mostly GPLv3+ licensed. You are allowed to compile proprietary programs with GCC thanks to the GCC Runtime Library exception. Study it https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.en.html carefully. Notice that GCC plugins almost have to be free software... to allow you to still compile proprietary code using them. I cannot say for sure if the GCC Runtime Library exception applies to libgccjit, and how exactly (I believe it does apply). Ask your lawyers, and ask the FSF. I don't like stating that GPLv3 is viral. That word is pejorative. GPLv3 is a strong copyleft license, and if you improve or use GCC (or use libgccjit, considered to be part of GCC) you are bound to it. If the license of libgccjit don't fit your needs, then don't use libgccjit. That is no different with any other code (e.g. GNU readline is also a GPLv3 library). In general, if an open source project has a license you don't like, don't use that open source project! Cheers Basile STARYNKEVITCH == http://starynkevitch.net/Basile opinions are mine only - les opinions sont seulement miennes Bourg La Reine, France