licensing questions

licensing questions

[Paulo Matos]

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.

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?

Kind regards,
-- 
Paulo Matos

Re: licensing questions

[Basile Starynkevitch]

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

Re: licensing questions

[David Malcolm]

On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 18:23 +0100, 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.
> 
> 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 don't represent anyone here]

IIRC, my thinking at that time was that the GCC-as-shared-library
feature might be controversial (as well as a technical challenge), and
I didn't want to have to also deal with a license debate on top of
those two.  Hence I went with the GPLv3 as a path of last resistance. 
I haven't yet run into any issues with the license in my own work (but
all my work is free software, so...)

The FSF owns the copyright here.  Perhaps a case could be made that it
might serve the FSF's strategic interests to allow some kind of dual
licensing of libgccjit, but I'm not sure either way.  (It's not
something I want to spend my own cycles on pursuing, but if someone
else cares, fair enough; I suspect that that's more a topic for an FSF-
strategy-focused-list, rather than this mailing list, though).

Dave

Re: licensing questions

[Basile Starynkevitch]

On 2/21/19 6:51 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 18:23 +0100, 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.
>>
>> 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 don't represent anyone here]
>
> IIRC, my thinking at that time was that the GCC-as-shared-library
> feature might be controversial (as well as a technical challenge), and
> I didn't want to have to also deal with a license debate on top of
> those two.  Hence I went with the GPLv3 as a path of last resistance.
I don't think you could change that. libgccjit was obviously, when you 
start writing it, a derivative work of GCC. And at that time GCC was 
(and today still is) GPLv3+ licensed (with exceptions).
> I haven't yet run into any issues with the license in my own work (but
> all my work is free software, so...)
>
> The FSF owns the copyright here.  Perhaps a case could be made that it
> might serve the FSF's strategic interests to allow some kind of dual
> licensing of libgccjit, but I'm not sure either way.  (It's not
> something I want to spend my own cycles on pursuing, but if someone
> else cares, fair enough; I suspect that that's more a topic for an FSF-
> strategy-focused-list, rather than this mailing list, though).

I share your analysis, and as a past minor contributor to GCC (but not 
to libgccjit) I don't even want its license to change. I am happy with 
GCC being GPLv3+ (and that license was a positive motivation to 
contribute to it in the past).

I would warn any reader of jit@gcc.gnu.org that wanting to change GCC 
license is an enormous goal (unreasonable, and that I dislike). My 
personal opinion is that it is unlikely to happen (unless a GPLv4 
appears, which is not on my radar).

My understanding is that libgccjit is part of GCC so has the same 
license. And wanting to change the license of GCC is really completely 
unreasonable (and something I personally disagree with, but in any case 
only the FSF could change that license, being the legal owner of GCC).

Of course, discussing license on jit@gcc.gnu.org is completely 
off-topic. Sorry for that.

Cheers.

-- 
Basile STARYNKEVITCH   == http://starynkevitch.net/Basile
opinions are mine only - les opinions sont seulement miennes
Bourg La Reine, France