From: Anthony Green <green@moxielogic.com>
To: "Kaz Kylheku (libffi)" <382-725-6798@kylheku.com>
Cc: Bruno Haible <bruno@clisp.org>, libffi-discuss@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: additional license file in libffi source distribution?
Date: Thu, 03 May 2018 14:55:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACxje58bGj2aErGUPMeoogx2930DdzzDgxg45wXkUTzYk+M12A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e2249e25dec9ae764b3c18d066fa840e@mail.kylheku.com>
I agree that these license scanning tools are problematic. Fossology is
the one I'm familiar with, and it really dumbs things down to the point
that it is pretty much useless. I hate the fact that I've even considered
removing GPL build-time tools in order to cater to these broken scanners.
I've reached out to Fossology a few times, but no response to date.
AG
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Kaz Kylheku (libffi) <
382-725-6798@kylheku.com> wrote:
> On 2018-05-01 05:09, Bruno Haible wrote:
>
>> Hi Anthony,
>>
>> msvcc.sh and
>>> testsuite/libffi.bhaible are both covered by licensing terms that are
>>> different from the libffi license, and that we need to (a) remove them,
>>> or
>>> (b) include the license text.
>>>
>>
>> Correct. Including the license text is sufficient because
>> - build tools like msvcc.sh do not store copyrightable contents in the
>> generated binaries,
>> - the presence or absence of a test suite does not have an effect on the
>> generated binaries.
>>
>
> I think the combination is a bad idea.
>
> Organizations nowadays use scanning tools to classify the license of
> packages. If you have a GPL in there anywhere, the package may be falsely
> classified as GPL and people will leave it at that.
>
> Someone's program will end up being falsely regarded as "radioactive"
> because it depends on libffi.
>
> Nobody is going to manually inspect thousands of packages to pick apart
> which one of the included licenses actually applies to the executables.
>
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-03 14:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-01 11:03 Anthony Green
2018-05-01 12:09 ` Bruno Haible
[not found] ` <e2249e25dec9ae764b3c18d066fa840e@mail.kylheku.com>
2018-05-03 14:55 ` Anthony Green [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CACxje58bGj2aErGUPMeoogx2930DdzzDgxg45wXkUTzYk+M12A@mail.gmail.com \
--to=green@moxielogic.com \
--cc=382-725-6798@kylheku.com \
--cc=bruno@clisp.org \
--cc=libffi-discuss@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).