From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24466 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2018 21:03:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 24429 invoked by uid 89); 18 Jun 2018 21:03:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mail-qk0-f172.google.com X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:openpgp:autocrypt :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uGaWzNM89DosrssVek5aSSw0TMX+dJX/AG3GtxKbAEs=; b=N5iF0B2NOpj1qtOuUbWwMHyCV/Tc7WbXyahu1+ide0l2t5D2fEevztQLLdsvzT0rYc lfuiwtpYFfphTaCBlAutqtOoAqe98V1yqjRHOoG5xIJ64rbA9dA414uBbUZbh4g4ldjA 4HN2h1E+0PFOSWUe6sZwQ9ZaI4AvAc7CqeEyarXXIlMi0mP3AfkyyVURJqb+QZZrFdq/ Dm5ZX1ck3BLlqDtumpsLWYpR9zU1+w58Iu3qW3zqAKktCiCdPm/bc/ZBKacgBW+DCBFT 08Jg9WO2mPnQ1JPunbA5/EDoGjh8h+6P2JHm4Bp9EA4ZxJSORajV/0IFFrZZ/Q0ArSJ4 XS8A== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E0F3xBiyAK4HNODYKajMLoRepYKOZ3j6iyr8wCF0b+t5B/ZzMTm PUhlYxWXisc2QEgXOnRWByQQNZrTMJg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKJWHd/kMtag2ZigCTJI87bwGRoQKVkmH9ErnS9SlzTNSZu+ZMCXG+aYUPhQ4PxXqFAiw3WtTg== X-Received: by 2002:a37:5c01:: with SMTP id q1-v6mr10978896qkb.361.1529355829969; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 14:03:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFC 0/1] Contributing a compound object to the libpthread To: Oleh Derevenko Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: <1522762896.2654.94.camel@codethink.co.uk> From: Adhemerval Zanella Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: <48d8fbfa-4d49-472c-650f-e1e0fbc54511@linaro.org> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 21:03:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2018-06/txt/msg00526.txt.bz2 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 > 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 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 >>> >>> >>> > > >