From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yb1-xb31.google.com (mail-yb1-xb31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b31]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DB4C3851C0C for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 17:00:39 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 1DB4C3851C0C Received: by mail-yb1-xb31.google.com with SMTP id r23so6420303ybd.10 for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 10:00:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=VXSE3BH/0F+gszfi7+LdWqh90Xt0l0pCnNwoaKxBzlA=; b=Ae1P/8fotu6vgODd4qWXONyZk9x1bH16jqg3JaMkwQTOde2zLzw162Wf6PLOF4neGN 0WWk4wLmyLgvF1HN4ckJxS8AtNXzKV9XIFcno9zoIwO9hDglMkHk0Brc7y0NjzluzqjY yK7NS9xhgw0kptbY6GWRywdH/czbxKQKy5eVSZ3slBEvuQzOpFblYm+346juCe85KgEU WYfQDrf0co6ojCSc7on/ooyGoYpRWVN7RRCX7otaAEfTwH2LWsrHddbEDhy45U76uNl3 kSTqF8WhDhR+2EH9nBRTYVjjJsvkMqlsKTJhmGlTqlqxOahBhSYji88sDBSnzHRTW+c6 Rgzw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530MkG6DzI/F9Ic5mvcPV/x3qcMgMQsHoLY2jNshnYi7vq3KaaTI Lwr/DR+CpDQtGL8j41IguhSaP3pvuw+roCW2Xkvcqqhe X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwJePwR4QqWx8qP7KBmzWZpttwQq3IsxS73pHe7RTmvQVSC1PO+BHzNXjd6OSQQ1RSJ8aMEKJu/1aqH4zMUiXw= X-Received: by 2002:a5b:acc:: with SMTP id a12mr2997095ybr.219.1590512437105; Tue, 26 May 2020 10:00:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: "P. -" Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 21:00:22 +0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: libstdc++ still has license conditions of SGI STL on top of GNU GPLv3+GCC Runtime Exception, right? To: Jonathan Wakely Cc: "libstdc++" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, KAM_SHORT, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libstdc++ mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 17:00:40 -0000 > Maybe because the "it-is-going-to-end-up-in-the-binary-code" terms > don't exist for those licenses. The terms make no mention of object > code. Contrast that with the GPL, Apache, BSD-3-clause, and XFree86 > licences which specifically talk about object code or binary form. Ah, that's how you interpret it. I see, since the license in the header files is akin to the "Old style" MIT (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT#Old_Style ), and MIT-alikes normally don't talk about the object code, there seem to be a difference in interpretation of MIT and MIT-alike licenses as to whether to include the license/notices with the binaries (Jonathan, the links are included for someone who will stumble upon this post while searching; I believe you know what I'm talking about and don't suggest you to sift through them): https://github.com/github/choosealicense.com/issues/257#issuecomment-183517808 https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/8161/license-that-requires-attribution-to-end-users https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4058/what-is-the-point-of-including-the-mit-copyright-text-if-you-use-someones-code https://www.quora.com/Does-the-MIT-license-require-attribution-in-a-binary-only-distribution https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#legacy-license-structure https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12560056 and so on. Both Chrome and Firefox (under windows) include MIT-licenses for various libraries in their binary distributions and I saw one Huawei's PDF also doing this (one of them was for STLPort: document "HUAWEI ME906s-158&ME909s Series Module Open Source Software Notice" if anyone is interested). As for myself I'm on the "'this software'/'copy' covers derivative works/objective code"-side, but there doesn't seem to be any authoritative source on this so we, indeed, go into "talk to your lawyer" territory and I'm going to leave it at that. > Those aren't question, they're statements, and I don't even know what > the fourth one means. Thank you for understanding what I was trying to say anyway - it was poor wording on my part. As for the fourth one - imagine function declarations, std::enable_if, something like factorial<4>::value in constexpr and so on: things that usually don't result in a meaningful code generations by themselves. > But anyway, my personal understanding is that > none of them is true. I started with this premise as well, but was met with "you only have to follow GPLv3 + GCC Runtime Exception" view. Now that's settled, I have no more questions; there seems to be only two possible conclusions: a) If your interpretation is correct then the only license to follow with binary distribution with dynamic linking is GPLv3+GRE; b) If "this software" covers objective code, then the inclusion of HP/SGI's copyrights and text is necessary. Thank you for your time!