From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io1-xd2a.google.com (mail-io1-xd2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2a]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C0413895475 for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 08:27:45 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 2C0413895475 Received: by mail-io1-xd2a.google.com with SMTP id p20so7626672iop.11 for ; Tue, 26 May 2020 01:27:45 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=THLUPBukvwuJOvCCr6vSa32bWl0nUEjl5lp68DSWdeY=; b=NIvAGHRmCVw4yCxOPjpCdAM2qckFbSFzlUwvqstWqrYyxaTNjoTDsTxB4Ihpkq0szc FyCyadtvVnfSe5ExbH5ZZIMSCNUBfgPL8R2w80QavaR15b5mwDIUpjJuT88eKiImF9cd lDg0p3sGbIjPGxxxmGD+AtYcwLB3xI8Pu42KS4bWo9U99O12bIR155e7VcorN2JwQ1IK 55b/dBQHrP5BzJKK4X+1yKAmSGp1CWgEGRLLDczeciBVRTsG3WSzAOCN9mi2QiZAOS4+ O/bHZjzDYPzOD883NETVawaUMW7tjou44HLNpc5tpDSngXTnqBGO4/yuUZByR0K7fPMB kimg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532dhlGOaKai3tlYVvH8KYXjPDzoXVBBAcUhR0eT2Xfc+DZbKD9p N+PSJF0aj0sBI080HHYSQPyuAsL8GW1c3L2ShT8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwIi6/0ChGKr/5cq9uYqbs5N5TvrHM8x8qKgpSxRKxk+7pwVHPihIQjiBi0cqH+ThiOe+Jcp6R3D9g9V4LEJyA= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:84d4:: with SMTP id z20mr16419116ior.36.1590481664597; Tue, 26 May 2020 01:27:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Jonathan Wakely Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 09:27:33 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: libstdc++ still has license conditions of SGI STL on top of GNU GPLv3+GCC Runtime Exception, right? To: "P. -" Cc: "libstdc++" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 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 08:27:46 -0000 On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 02:09, P. - wrote: > > =D0=B2=D1=81, 24 =D0=BC=D0=B0=D1=8F 2020 =D0=B3. =D0=B2 02:14, Jonathan W= akely : >> >> You should talk to a lawyer if you're concerned, but the notices say >> they apply to "this software and its documentation" not to your >> software. > > > The mentioned header files are full of templates, which will be included = in the object files if used. So, a partial copy of "this software" (if it a= ctually covers any templates) is very likely to end up in my binaries. I'm not convinced that is required by those licenses, but you should ask a lawyer if you're concerned. > In fact, I'm 99% sure that I'm bound by those license agreements and can'= t use libstdc++ without including a copy of those copyright notices and lic= enses in documentation - and that would be fine, I'm OK with that - but eve= rywhere I go I can't find anyone who would mention it. It is as if usage of= libstdc++ is ONLY bound by GPLv3 + GCC Runtime Exception, and those additi= onal terms around it-is-going-to-end-up-in-the-binary-code do not exist - e= ven on stackexchange I got "GPLv3 + Exception only" answer. 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. > There are a few ways where ignoring those licenses is possible: > 1) Hewlett-Packard and Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc. has volunt= arily contributed their code to be distributed under GCC's license and the = notices are there for historical reason - can't find anything about that; > 2) FSF/libstdc++ maintainers has obtained special permissions from Hewlet= t-Packard and Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc. to distribute their c= ode under GCC's license - again, can't find anything; > 3) The license actually covers only notes and comments that exist only in= header files - the libstdc++'s FAQ contradicts that (see the link in the o= riginal email); > 4) The code that is covered by those licenses exists only in compile time= and is thrown away when compiled. > > The lawyer can't answer those 4 questions - only the libstdc++ maintainer= s/authors can. Those aren't question, they're statements, and I don't even know what the fourth one means. But anyway, my personal understanding is that none of them is true. It seems silly to assume that the licence terms stated in the file are only there accidentally, or some other convoluted assumption that contradicts the actual text in the files. A much simpler explanation is that you've misinterpreted the license terms. Talk to a lawyer if you're concerned. > To reiterate, I'm completely fine with those additional conditions (albei= t it's not very convenient to extract them with regular expressions and gcc= -E -C), but I just can't find any mention of "the libstdc++ is licensed un= der GPLv3 + GCC Runtime Exception, but some of its components have 3rd-part= y licenses that have additional terms" everywhere else apart from the heade= rs. I even saw an opinion that GCC Runtime Exception exempts me from comply= ing with those licenses, but such an exemption simply can't apply to an inc= luded 3rd-party code! > > Best regards, thanks for replying.