Re: [RFC 0/1] Contributing a compound object to the libpthread

[Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>]

My understanding is GLIBC is a GNU project and it should follow the
guideline for GNU projects [1]. It is an issue, both practically and
philosophically [2], if we add incompatible code regarding licensing
in GNU project.

And although it was not clear to me exactly how you do intend to make
your suggestion available, previous messages hints me that you want 
something like this [3]. So what exactly is preventing you do distribute
your patch in a GPL-compatible way? If your strong unwilling to do so,
one option would be to just create an external library with your
preferred license.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
[2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html
[3] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowRequireFee

On 18/06/2018 16:52, Oleh Derevenko wrote:
> Hi Adhemerval,
> 
> Just out of curiosity, may I ask why? Just to blindly obey the rules?
> My code is not going to conflict with general LGPL license. It is a
> client level only feature which is not needed unless you have
> server/worker threads. The library itself will not depend on it. From
> library's perspective that'll be a kind of dead code inclusion.
> It's only when user decides to use (invoke) the code - that'll be
> his/her deliberate decision and his/her deliberate obligation in
> addition to LGPL.
> 
> After all, I would judge based on the feature's benefits or lack of those first.
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Adhemerval Zanella
> <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
>> As Ben Hutchings has noted, new code additions are expected to have be
>> licensed with LGPL 2.1+ following the default FSF copyright assignment
>> (as Carlos has noted in previously message). You seemed to not be in
>> accord on such criteria, so I think we won't be able to take your
>> contribution.
>>
>>
>> On 16/06/2018 15:37, Oleh Derevenko wrote:
>>>  Hi Florian,
>>>
>>> Would not it work if a warning and a license text would be put in the
>>> header and in respective manual pages to declare and explain what are
>>> the use conditions/restrictions? That would be a kind of offer the
>>> public could accept and it would provide them legal grounds. Of
>>> course, I will have little (if any) means to verify and control. But
>>> this is more a honesty oriented approach and I guess I'll be fine with
>>> that.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> On 06/15/2018 04:05 PM, Oleh Derevenko wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Could it be that a project like libc does not have a group of people
>>>>> eligible for making decisive judgements and saying "yes" or "no" on
>>>>> behalf of it? Or do you need more time?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You said you want to avoid “misuse within commercial so[f]tware”.  I don't
>>>> see how you can do that while still contributing to glibc, so I didn't look
>>>> at your proposal in detail.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Florian
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
> 
>