Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Thomas Preud'homme wrote: > You are talking about copyright license agreement [0]. This might seems > nice > but many people are unwilling (or unable) to sign such agreement. Thus I > don't > think it's worth the trouble. > > [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement FWIW: IANAL, but from what i understand (from the sqlite and Fossil projects), to be legally valid such a waiver has to be sent in physical form to the license holder/manager, and that person is responsible for ensuring the physical safety of those documents. e.g. Richard Hipp (sqlite/Fossil) keeps his in a fire safe. -- - stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
Le jeudi 2 mai 2013 20:27:33, Jared Maddox a écrit : > > You actually need to ask everyone that's committed as little as a > one-liner that's still in TCC. I'd suggest that if this is taken > seriously, that one of the requirements for committing to TCC BECOME > that "contributions have to be licensed to TCC royalty-free, and > freely and infinitely redistributable under whatsoever license terms > TCC chooses to redistibute them under". You are talking about copyright license agreement [0]. This might seems nice but many people are unwilling (or unable) to sign such agreement. Thus I don't think it's worth the trouble. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement Best regards, Thomas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
> Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 11:48:29 -0500 > From: Rob Landley > To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > Cc: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc? > Message-ID: <1367426909.18069.201@driftwood> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; DelSp=Yes; Format=Flowed > > I also plan to include an implementation of make, maybe some of the > other low hanging posix fruit (lex, m4, maybe a micro-yacc) that I've considered writing a tiny-make before. I might provide some "files updated" hooks for tup-like functionality, too, and will almost-guaranteed provide a "clean implementation" flag to disable the obnoxious default behaviors that prevent make from being generic. If I do it, then I'll be posting a mention here. If I do and you want to use it, but the license isn't right, then point me to this and remind me to license it as MIT, BSD, or ZLIB. > Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 10:55:42 +0200 > From: grischka > To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc? > Message-ID: <51822a0e.9090...@gmx.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Actually the fact that LGPL makes that legal nitpick from static > vs. shared is clearly one point against it, for me. > > What do you think, Daniel? > > Unless you object we could then proceed with step 2: Is it > possible? Well, why not. And then step 3: What would it take? > I guess we would first ask all people who have contributed entire > files, that is, beyond yourself and myself and Fabrice: Shinichiro > Hamaji (x86_64-gen.c) and maybe Frederic Feret (x86_64-asm.c, which > I eventually merged into i386-asm.c, which probably means that it > wasn't soo different). > You actually need to ask everyone that's committed as little as a one-liner that's still in TCC. I'd suggest that if this is taken seriously, that one of the requirements for committing to TCC BECOME that "contributions have to be licensed to TCC royalty-free, and freely and infinitely redistributable under whatsoever license terms TCC chooses to redistibute them under". There's probably several better worded versions of that out there, and I'm not a lawyer so I don't know what I might have missed, but I trist my point is conveyed. This might force the mob branch to be moved to a separate project, and only be pulled from after all relevant commit authors agree to have their relevant commits placed under the the terms, but so be it. I'm personally of the opinion that any open project beyond a thousand or so lines of code should probably have such "commit licensing" requirements so that license (and whatever other) changes remain PRACTICAL over time. For what it's worth, while getting permission from all of those who've produced commits would be involved, I'd think that it would also be worth it's own release, just for "paperwork" reasons. ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
Hi, I didn't read all messages in this lengthy thread, but I happened found my name mentioned. I'm OK with the change. Thanks! On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Milutin Jovanović < jovanovic.milu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I wrote my email before yours, and example was chosen just to illustrate > point. > > Miki. > On 2 May 2013 11:52, wrote: > >> On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 09:22:15AM -0400, Milutin Jovanović wrote: >> > Do we really think we can convince one another that static is better >> > then dynamic >> > linking? >> >> That was not my point at all, sorry if it looked that way. >> >> > the reasons are not strong enough to warrant the amount >> > of work necessary >> >> This is the main question, are they or are they not. >> A license which attracts more users may attract more developers as well. >> >> Btw, everyone here - thanks for tcc. >> >> I am going silent now. >> Rune >> >> >> ___ >> Tinycc-devel mailing list >> Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org >> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel >> > > ___ > Tinycc-devel mailing list > Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel > > ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
I wrote my email before yours, and example was chosen just to illustrate point. Miki. On 2 May 2013 11:52, wrote: > On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 09:22:15AM -0400, Milutin Jovanović wrote: > > Do we really think we can convince one another that static is better > > then dynamic > > linking? > > That was not my point at all, sorry if it looked that way. > > > the reasons are not strong enough to warrant the amount > > of work necessary > > This is the main question, are they or are they not. > A license which attracts more users may attract more developers as well. > > Btw, everyone here - thanks for tcc. > > I am going silent now. > Rune > > > ___ > Tinycc-devel mailing list > Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel > ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 09:22:15AM -0400, Milutin Jovanović wrote: > Do we really think we can convince one another that static is better > then dynamic > linking? That was not my point at all, sorry if it looked that way. > the reasons are not strong enough to warrant the amount > of work necessary This is the main question, are they or are they not. A license which attracts more users may attract more developers as well. Btw, everyone here - thanks for tcc. I am going silent now. Rune ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
Hello Daniel, On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 01:28:52PM +0200, Daniel Glöckner wrote: > > From my perspective I'd like to skip the additional worry about which > > programs can be linked to which libraries and "how". > > if you are a packager, why do you have to worry about that? > I mean, if you still have the possibility to chose which library to > link to, most of the time the program is already (L)GPL compatible. That's the point, I am not happy with something that is true "most of the time" and thus implies an extra constraint and a need for using different approaches "sometimes". This is counterproductive. > And if you always use the shared library, there is never a problem > with LGPL. No I do not [want to] always use dynamic linking. > > I dislike dynamic linking for technical reasons (too much complexity, > > artificial limitations and side effects, many times for no gain). Then, > > I dislike licenses which force me to use inferior/inappropriate technical > > means. > > Can you elaborate on that? This is almost off-topic but I'll try, concisely. > Aside from some people not understanding > how to use SONAMEs (Tegra 2 libjpeg.so binary blob...), I've never had > problems with shared libraries. I did, more than once. [BTW SONAMEs are totally useless in a global environment where all libraries and their different versions/instances (say differing as little as by optimization flags) do coexist and are to be used simultaneously, arbitrarily and deterministically.] > Off the top of my head I remember three > cases where shared libs were superior: I do not say dynamic linking is always worse, just that sometimes it is a PITA. We do use shared libraries and often they are very useful. Sometimes it is more efficient to use static linking (instead of workarounds like creating custom versions of general purpose libraries, to reduce the totally unnecessary bloat). On one hand I find it easier to be sure which symbols are resolved from which library with static linking (may be this is always possible with dynamic linking too but it looks more complicated and less certain as it is done later in a possibly different situation). On the other hand it is often easier to produce "a compact binary" compared to "a compact filetree with all dependencies of this binary". On the third hand I do not find it fun to check all the licenses of the concerned libraries (possibly quite a lot) to know for sure it is ok to link statically - or to discover that static linking is out of question. > > BSD license makes the software easier to package / deliver, which > > can make a big difference in certain cases. > > Btw., how do you at Aetey manage to provide the source code for the > (L)GPL software you host? This looks offtopic :) but here you are: You find the source available by the same means as the binaries, i.e. in the file trees where the binaries reside. If you can access the binary, then you can see the source. Indeed, we save some disk space by not putting these source copies there for BSD-licensed stuff - even though it is not the benefit I was looking for :) Actually we try to make as much as possible of useful stuff available as source, even our own production tools, as I said on FSCONS last year. Regards, Rune ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
Hi all, Do we really think we can convince one another that static is better then dynamic linking? My brother sent me this few days ago. Little did I know that it is true. :-) "Arguing with an engineer is a lot like wrestling in the mud with a pig. After a few hours, you realize that he likes it." I think it is telling that the longest conversation tcc mailing list has seen in a long time is of a 'religious' nature. With the range of opinions and the types of arguments used, it seems to me that it is unlikely a unanimous agreement can be reached. And a unanimous agreement is necessary to change the license (unless we want to throw away some commits). The apparent situations I see is that while for most people BSD license is preferable and would be best choice for a new project, in practical terms switching is not feasible as the reasons are not strong enough to warrant the amount of work necessary, especially considering that tcc is not very active project. My $.02 Miki Jovanovic. ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
Le jeudi 2 mai 2013 13:28:52, Daniel Glöckner a écrit : > Hi Rune, > > On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 10:37:58AM +, u-tcc-u...@aetey.se wrote: > > From my perspective I'd like to skip the additional worry about which > > programs can be linked to which libraries and "how". > > if you are a packager, why do you have to worry about that? > I mean, if you still have the possibility to chose which library to > link to, most of the time the program is already (L)GPL compatible. > And if you always use the shared library, there is never a problem > with LGPL. By the way, you might be interested in reading http://lwn.net/Articles/548216/ > > > I dislike dynamic linking for technical reasons (too much complexity, > > artificial limitations and side effects, many times for no gain). Then, > > I dislike licenses which force me to use inferior/inappropriate technical > > means. > > Can you elaborate on that? Aside from some people not understanding > how to use SONAMEs (Tegra 2 libjpeg.so binary blob...), I've never had > problems with shared libraries. Off the top of my head I remember three > cases where shared libs were superior: Nicely summarized here: http://www.akkadia.org/drepper/no_static_linking.html Best regards, Thomas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
Hi Rune, On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 10:37:58AM +, u-tcc-u...@aetey.se wrote: > From my perspective I'd like to skip the additional worry about which > programs can be linked to which libraries and "how". if you are a packager, why do you have to worry about that? I mean, if you still have the possibility to chose which library to link to, most of the time the program is already (L)GPL compatible. And if you always use the shared library, there is never a problem with LGPL. > I dislike dynamic linking for technical reasons (too much complexity, > artificial limitations and side effects, many times for no gain). Then, > I dislike licenses which force me to use inferior/inappropriate technical > means. Can you elaborate on that? Aside from some people not understanding how to use SONAMEs (Tegra 2 libjpeg.so binary blob...), I've never had problems with shared libraries. Off the top of my head I remember three cases where shared libs were superior: - Libgcc for ARM once had a bug in the division routine. If all applications had linked to the shared library, it would have been enough to replace just a single file. - Libpng has multiple times been updated because a vulnerability had been found in the code. And guess what, Firefox per default links statically to its own copy of libpng, so you have to replace Firefox as well. - I once had to squeeze ISC DHCP into a little NOR flash but each of the applications was linked statically to several ISC libraries and it appeared like no code was discarded during linking. It all magically fit once I persuaded the build process to create and use shared libraries. > BSD license makes the software easier to package / deliver, which > can make a big difference in certain cases. Btw., how do you at Aetey manage to provide the source code for the (L)GPL software you host? Best regards, Daniel ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
Hello, Not being a tcc developer, but a software maintainer/"packager", I am tempted to suggest that BSD license is a better way to go. >From my perspective I'd like to skip the additional worry about which programs can be linked to which libraries and "how". I dislike dynamic linking for technical reasons (too much complexity, artificial limitations and side effects, many times for no gain). Then, I dislike licenses which force me to use inferior/inappropriate technical means. BSD license makes the software easier to package / deliver, which can make a big difference in certain cases. Cheers, Rune ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
Daniel Glöckner wrote: On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 07:12:50PM +0200, Daniel Glöckner wrote: On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 07:07:34PM +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote: Mmmmh. Overall I'm more a (A|L)GPL guy but I choose different license for different project. For tcc I thought it could make sense since we have only libtcc has static lib and many people seem to build stuff around it. And if I volunteer to extend the Makefile for a shared libtcc? We already have rules for libtcc.so.1.0 and libtcc.dll in our Makefile. Actually the fact that LGPL makes that legal nitpick from static vs. shared is clearly one point against it, for me. Plus the fact that to be consequent we'd need to be prepared to go after infringements. I personally neither have time nor intentions to do that. Anyone else here? Anyway, you might realize that in order to keep the option real, I decided to give up my "undecided" position. Maybe it's the right time to give tinycc a slight push into a different direction, or back to the direction that it was once meant to go. Thus I suggest: Let's go for it. No risk no fun. Yes or yes? What do you think, Daniel? Unless you object we could then proceed with step 2: Is it possible? Well, why not. And then step 3: What would it take? I guess we would first ask all people who have contributed entire files, that is, beyond yourself and myself and Fabrice: Shinichiro Hamaji (x86_64-gen.c) and maybe Frederic Feret (x86_64-asm.c, which I eventually merged into i386-asm.c, which probably means that it wasn't soo different). --- grischka Daniel ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 07:12:50PM +0200, Daniel Glöckner wrote: > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 07:07:34PM +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote: > > Mmmmh. Overall I'm more a (A|L)GPL guy but I choose different license for > > different project. For tcc I thought it could make sense since we have only > > libtcc has static lib and many people seem to build stuff around it. > > And if I volunteer to extend the Makefile for a shared libtcc? We already have rules for libtcc.so.1.0 and libtcc.dll in our Makefile. Daniel ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
On 04/30/2013 02:14:58 PM, Marc Andre Tanner wrote: On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 03:40:43PM +0200, grischka wrote: > >... and since I got permission from Fabrice to use his original > >tcc code under a BSD license ... > > Actually it's a long standing offer from Fabrice, also repeated > lately on the occasion of the 0.9.26 release. I don't know about "longstanding offer" but I did ask him about it a year ago: http://landley.net/notes-2012.html#14-05-2012 Specifically I wanted to do a kickstarter to hire _him_ to glue tcc and tcg together, and asked him to name his price. He said he wasn't interested. The "PS" I didn't reproduce in that blog entry was (rummages in email...) Message-ID: <4fb0ccef.1040...@bellard.org> Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 11:14:23 +0200 From: Fabrice Bellard To: Rob Landley Subject: Re: Contract query: How much to glue tcg to tcc and update tccboot? Hi, I had the same idea when I was working on TCC and QEMU. The code generator of QEMU is not generic enough to do it, but at that time I began to modify it to handle the missing bits. Unfortunately it is a large project and I lost interest in it. Maybe someday I'll be interested again in compilers (perhaps to do a mix between C & Javascript), but now I have other projects which have a higher priority, so I cannot help you now. Regarding the licensing, I'd like to change the TCC license to BSD since a long time, so I see no problem with that. I would have to look at my old repository to see from which version it is safer to start. Best regards, Fabrice. On 05/11/12 20:55, Rob Landley wrote: > Hello Mr. Bellard, I'd like to run a kickstarter to hire you to: > > 1) Adapt qemu's Tiny Code Generator to work as the back-end for your old > Tiny C Compiler, to create a new qcc (QEMU C Compiler) that can produce > output for the various targets qemu supports. > > 2) Resurrect tccboot with the result, and get it to boot a current (3.x) > kernel to a shell prompt. (Another "modified subset" is fine, as long as > it boots to a shell prompt.) > > 3) Release the result under a BSD license. > > Does this sound doable? If so, how much would you charge (so I know how > much to ask the kickstarter for), how long do you think it might take > (ballpark), and when might you be available to start (if we can get you > the money by then)? > > (I.E. "it would take me a dozen fortnights, cost my weight in canadian > 'toonie' coins, and the next open slot in my schedule is 37 years from > now.") > > --- Optional details: > > My notes on this project, from when I tried to do it myself, are at: > >http://landley.net/code/tinycc/qcc/todo.txt > > I can maintain this after it works, I just don't know enough to make it > work in the first place, and have been trying to find time to learn for > years now but keep growing _other_ projects instead (toybox, aboriginal > linux, I accidentally became linux-kernel Documentation maintainer...) > > I have no particular interest in the current "no releases in 3 years" > tcc mob branch, and am just as happy for you to start with your old code > if you prefer. If you want anything out of my old tcc fork, I hereby > grant it to you under the same BSD license as tcc/tcg. > > It doesn't need multilib, being able to build "arm-tcc" and similar > would be fine, and probably the common case given the need for libc, > libtcc, crtbegin, and so on. (Being able to specify code generation with > the same granularity as qemu's -cpu option would be nice, but not a huge > deal in the absence of any real optimization.) > > Eventually I'd like to "busyboxify" tcc/qcc, I.E. make it so the > front-end recognizes whether it's called as cc/cpp/ld/as/strip and > reacts accordingly. But I can handle that part later, and make its > command line parsing understand more gcc-isms if necessary. I wrote some > notes about that years ago here: > >http://landley.net/code/tinycc/qcc/commands.txt > > I don't care about C++. The missing C99 bits from your old tccboot > notes would be really nice, though. > > Simple dead code elimination would be really nice. (Busybox depends on > it to avoid linker calls to undefined functions.) Just detecting if (0) > constructs after constant propogation and suppressing output (or > diverting output to a ram buffer that gets discarded) would be plenty. > But if that sounds out of scope, I could probably tackle that after the > fact too... > > Thanks for your time, > > Rob This was the first public statement from him I could find on the matter. (If he mentioned this before then, could you point me at where?) > So the questions is: Do you people want, is it possible, what > would it take - to change our tinycc code's license from LGPL > to a BSD-like one (such as
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc? / JIT
KHMan wrote: > On 5/1/2013 7:10 PM, Armin Steinhoff wrote: >> Daniel Glöckner wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 09:14:58PM +0200, Marc Andre Tanner wrote: The fear of proprietary forks seems unfounded because there is already a mature BSD licensed C compiler (clang) available for people to base their work on. >>> Let's see.. >>> $ size /opt/llvm/bin/clang >>> text databssdechexfilename >>> 389997781193992 5464040248410266245a >>> /opt/llvm/bin/clang >>> >>> I think TinyCC might be preferred by some people who just need a >>> small scripting engine. >> >> TinyCC ist the only compiler which provides JIT compiling for ARM > > http://luajit.org/luajit.html > http://luajit.org/performance_arm.html Interesting ! Thanks ! --Armin ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
Le mercredi 1 mai 2013 05:54:54, KHMan a écrit : > On 5/1/2013 9:51 AM, Rob Landley wrote: > > On 04/30/2013 11:53:31 AM, Daniel Glöckner wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 05:43:03PM +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote: > >> > As I already said privately, I'm fine with BSD-2-clause. > >> > >> Does that mean you prefer it over the LGPL? > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGmtP5Lg_t0#t=15m10s > > > >> What about you, grischka? Which one do you prefer? > > > > Why on earth would that matter? > > > > I identified a dozen people I have to talk to just to get a clean > > version of the code in _my_ fork. You guys have been doing a "mob" > > branch for years, with random drive-by commits from people you > > don't even know, who have zero ongoing relationship with the project. > > > > What makes you think you _can_ relicense your version? > > I agree with Rob. Too many large and small contribs to be casually > discussing about relicensing... I've been thinking about it as well. I wondered for instance about whether to ask people whose code constribution have been entirely rewritten since. On the one hand none of their code remains, on the other hand one could say the new code is just an improvement of the old one. It probably depends of the modifications made. Contacting everyone sounds impossible and it would thus require rewritting some bits. Maybe many many bits. And let me tell you I'm not overly excited about auditing the code ownership. Also, I already see several people against such a move. One of them wrote the arm support and added probably more code to tcc than I did. I don't feel like pushing the change. Best regards, Thomas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
On 5/1/2013 7:10 PM, Armin Steinhoff wrote: Daniel Glöckner wrote: On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 09:14:58PM +0200, Marc Andre Tanner wrote: The fear of proprietary forks seems unfounded because there is already a mature BSD licensed C compiler (clang) available for people to base their work on. Let's see.. $ size /opt/llvm/bin/clang text data bss dec hex filename 389997781193992 54640 40248410266245a /opt/llvm/bin/clang I think TinyCC might be preferred by some people who just need a small scripting engine. TinyCC ist the only compiler which provides JIT compiling for ARM http://luajit.org/luajit.html http://luajit.org/performance_arm.html -- Cheers, Kein-Hong Man (esq.) Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
On 5/1/2013 5:58 PM, Daniel Glöckner wrote: On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 09:14:58PM +0200, Marc Andre Tanner wrote: The fear of proprietary forks seems unfounded because there is already a mature BSD licensed C compiler (clang) available for people to base their work on. Let's see.. $ size /opt/llvm/bin/clang text data bss dec hex filename 389997781193992 54640 40248410266245a /opt/llvm/bin/clang I think TinyCC might be preferred by some people who just need a small scripting engine. I would vote for a BSD licensed tinycc (remembering that talk is easy, manpower supply is hard). Given a show of hands, I think BSD would come out on top. After all, it's not a state-of-the-art thingy with a huge potential market; CINT and Ch for example have not gained much traction beyond niche areas. Much more advanced compiled/JITed scripting engines like LuaJIT are already BSD licensed. LGPL holdouts can be removed in the BSD version and be relegated to legacy status. Perhaps big contributions can be evaluated early to assess deletions. The main problem is the issue of doing a thorough audit of code ownership. Of course, I'll leave that to those supplying the manpower... -- Cheers, Kein-Hong Man (esq.) Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
Daniel Glöckner wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 09:14:58PM +0200, Marc Andre Tanner wrote: >> The fear of proprietary forks seems >> unfounded because there is already a mature BSD licensed C compiler >> (clang) available for people to base their work on. > Let's see.. > $ size /opt/llvm/bin/clang >text data bss dec hex filename > 38999778 1193992 54640 40248410266245a /opt/llvm/bin/clang > > I think TinyCC might be preferred by some people who just need a > small scripting engine. TinyCC ist the only compiler which provides JIT compiling for ARM --Armin > > Daniel > > ___ > Tinycc-devel mailing list > Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel > ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
Hi, On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 09:14:58PM +0200, Marc Andre Tanner wrote: > The fear of proprietary forks seems > unfounded because there is already a mature BSD licensed C compiler > (clang) available for people to base their work on. Let's see.. $ size /opt/llvm/bin/clang textdata bss dec hex filename 389997781193992 54640 40248410266245a /opt/llvm/bin/clang I think TinyCC might be preferred by some people who just need a small scripting engine. Daniel ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
On 5/1/2013 9:51 AM, Rob Landley wrote: On 04/30/2013 11:53:31 AM, Daniel Glöckner wrote: On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 05:43:03PM +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote: > As I already said privately, I'm fine with BSD-2-clause. Does that mean you prefer it over the LGPL? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGmtP5Lg_t0#t=15m10s What about you, grischka? Which one do you prefer? Why on earth would that matter? I identified a dozen people I have to talk to just to get a clean version of the code in _my_ fork. You guys have been doing a "mob" branch for years, with random drive-by commits from people you don't even know, who have zero ongoing relationship with the project. What makes you think you _can_ relicense your version? I agree with Rob. Too many large and small contribs to be casually discussing about relicensing... -- Cheers, Kein-Hong Man (esq.) Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
On 04/30/2013 12:35:30 PM, Jared Maddox wrote: > Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:03:43 +0200 > From: Daniel Gl?ckner > To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc? > Message-ID: <20130430140343.ga14...@minime.bse> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 03:40:43PM +0200, grischka wrote: >> So the questions is: Do you people want, is it possible, what >> would it take - to change our tinycc code's license from LGPL >> to a BSD-like one (such as below). >> >> Please discuss. > > I don't see anything good coming from a change from LGPL to BSD. > It just encourages people to create private forks for binary-only > releases. > > And I have yet to hear anyone complain on this list that they can't > use TinyCC in their product because they can't link dynamically to > the library. > > Daniel > I actually agree with staying with LGPL, but there is something to bear in mind. While I don't think Apple would let an app with TCC onto the iPhone anyways, if they did then it would HAVE TO be statically linked. Be that as it may, static linking could be taken care of with a license exception. Android has an official "No GPL in Userspace" policy (which includes LGPL). A vendor who adds GPL software to their install image cannot use the Android trademark to describe the result. FYI, Rob ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
OOPS forgot to say THANKYOU for getting it. (and giving it). A module is a module, and can be used in different ways. Even if that 'module' looks like a complete stand-alone application. EG the 'ls' command, with its non-trivial interpretation of bits in inodes, can clearly be standalone, but then again a module, It can be a busybox item, or an FTP sub-component, or tar-t, or (or rewritten from scratch, because the license didnt see that) Graham ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc? I'm personally not much bothered about someone using my portions > of code in some private or commercial project. If anything at > all I'm interested in the best future for the tinycc code base > itself. > > In that sense, let's think positive: > 1) how would/could it help to switch to BSD? > 2) how would/could it help to stay with LPGL? > > Commercial use is good. More testing, More people familiar with api, More eyes on the security holes, More contributors, (even if some delayed) More returned benefits, More demand for support within eco-system, More use, More, more, more With LGPL you can already statically link, provided you supply a kit which allows relinking with a modified/replaced lib. But that exposes a lot of (un-)stripped symbols of the rest of the program. Static linking is also an issue with embedded, size, signing, and so on. With an exemption clause, you could fix that, "as long as the exact source used, of the libXXX.a was published". I have seen (somewhere) GPL used with a massive broad sweeping exemption, that turned GPL into LGPL into BSD, as long as the modified code of this library component was fully published, But the lack of a well known exception clause, is irritating. The LGPL is supposedly well known, easily recognised, tested, etc, but ... The LGPL document is long, rambling, varies with version. Even the title of the LGPL is indecisive, and derogatory to itself. It spends so much time fighting with itself, it finally declares a draw. "Library" LGPL makes good sense: you can ask a lay jury to seek meaning in the title, "Lesser" LGPL is like a dunces cap, what is the intention? PATENT PROTECTION The GPL (and I guess the LGPL too) provides PATENT PROTECTION. EG Oracle cannot easily assert a patent that is in MySQL, because they agreed for it to be and remain GPL when they took over Sun. and continue to issue new versions, under GPL. They cant easily say that they didnt realise it was there, and in use. They know. Without that, they could find some sweet thing, and stop MariaDB. You might say 'prior art' but patent lawers are evolving. (...ermm...) This is happening with salt-resistant-seeds, which have existed in nature for 1000's of years being patented as being salt-resistant, because noone wrote that down. The first person to claim it gets it. Others get the right to fight for their rights. Obviously this only applies within the circle drawn around the libXXX.a code, but can you imagine a fight over floating point register allocation techniques for ARM64-2020. Some company encourages that patent to be coded in, then pulls the harpoon out. That said, there is a growing trend for BSD-2-clause in the javascipt groups. Lifes too short to read all that small-print. (or is that what they want us to say ...) Graham ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
On 04/30/2013 11:53:31 AM, Daniel Glöckner wrote: On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 05:43:03PM +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote: > As I already said privately, I'm fine with BSD-2-clause. Does that mean you prefer it over the LGPL? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGmtP5Lg_t0#t=15m10s What about you, grischka? Which one do you prefer? Why on earth would that matter? I identified a dozen people I have to talk to just to get a clean version of the code in _my_ fork. You guys have been doing a "mob" branch for years, with random drive-by commits from people you don't even know, who have zero ongoing relationship with the project. What makes you think you _can_ relicense your version? Rob ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 03:40:43PM +0200, grischka wrote: > >... and since I got permission from Fabrice to use his original > >tcc code under a BSD license ... > > Actually it's a long standing offer from Fabrice, also repeated > lately on the occasion of the 0.9.26 release. > > So the questions is: Do you people want, is it possible, what > would it take - to change our tinycc code's license from LGPL > to a BSD-like one (such as below). I am interested in a quality C compiler which is implemented in C. Therefore gcc and clang which both require C++ aren't an option. I think Rob's idea of combining Fabrice's BSD licensed Tiny Code Generator (TCG) with tinycc's frontend is great and could fit the bill. Unfortunately I currently lack both the time and probably also the knowledge to work on it myself. Independent of that I think a BSD licensed tinycc would probably get more people interested. The fear of proprietary forks seems unfounded because there is already a mature BSD licensed C compiler (clang) available for people to base their work on. So in summary I would prefere the BSD license. Marc -- Marc Andre Tanner >< http://www.brain-dump.org/ >< GPG key: CF7D56C0 ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
Daniel Glöckner wrote: On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 05:43:03PM +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote: As I already said privately, I'm fine with BSD-2-clause. Does that mean you prefer it over the LGPL? What about you, grischka? Which one do you prefer? I don't have a preference yet (and even if I had one I'm not sure it would count since as it stands I will be not so much involved in tinycc anymore anyway). One data point is that Fabrice apparently thinks it could be a good idea, and since tinycc originates from his thinking, there could be something to it. I'm personally not much bothered about someone using my portions of code in some private or commercial project. If anything at all I'm interested in the best future for the tinycc code base itself. In that sense, let's think positive: 1) how would/could it help to switch to BSD? 2) how would/could it help to stay with LPGL? --- grischka Daniel ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:03:43 +0200 > From: Daniel Gl?ckner > To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc? > Message-ID: <20130430140343.ga14...@minime.bse> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 03:40:43PM +0200, grischka wrote: >> So the questions is: Do you people want, is it possible, what >> would it take - to change our tinycc code's license from LGPL >> to a BSD-like one (such as below). >> >> Please discuss. > > I don't see anything good coming from a change from LGPL to BSD. > It just encourages people to create private forks for binary-only > releases. > > And I have yet to hear anyone complain on this list that they can't > use TinyCC in their product because they can't link dynamically to > the library. > > Daniel > I actually agree with staying with LGPL, but there is something to bear in mind. While I don't think Apple would let an app with TCC onto the iPhone anyways, if they did then it would HAVE TO be statically linked. Be that as it may, static linking could be taken care of with a license exception. ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 07:07:34PM +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote: > Mmmmh. Overall I'm more a (A|L)GPL guy but I choose different license for > different project. For tcc I thought it could make sense since we have only > libtcc has static lib and many people seem to build stuff around it. And if I volunteer to extend the Makefile for a shared libtcc? Daniel ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
Le mardi 30 avril 2013 18:53:31, Daniel Glöckner a écrit : > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 05:43:03PM +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote: > > As I already said privately, I'm fine with BSD-2-clause. > > Does that mean you prefer it over the LGPL? > > What about you, grischka? Which one do you prefer? Mmmmh. Overall I'm more a (A|L)GPL guy but I choose different license for different project. For tcc I thought it could make sense since we have only libtcc has static lib and many people seem to build stuff around it. > > Daniel Best regards, Thomas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 05:43:03PM +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote: > As I already said privately, I'm fine with BSD-2-clause. Does that mean you prefer it over the LGPL? What about you, grischka? Which one do you prefer? Daniel ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
As a non-contributor, I would prefer a BSD license over LGPL. BSD more closely matches how I think of open source software today. With regards to forking, I think there is little incentive to do that; Clang already exists under a BSD license and has an opinion that aligns with mine. *We actively intend for clang (and LLVM as a whole) to be used for commercial projects, not only as a stand-alone compiler but also as a library embedded inside a proprietary application. The BSD license is the simplest way to allow this. We feel that the license encourages contributors to pick up the source and work with it, and believe that those individuals and organizations will contribute back their work if they do not want to have to maintain a fork forever (which is time consuming and expensive when merges are involved). Further, nobody makes money on compilers these days, but many people need them to get bigger goals accomplished: it makes sense for everyone to work together.* [http://clang.llvm.org/features.html#license] On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Sean Conner wrote: > It was thus said that the Great Daniel Glöckner once stated: > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 03:40:43PM +0200, grischka wrote: > > > So the questions is: Do you people want, is it possible, what > > > would it take - to change our tinycc code's license from LGPL > > > to a BSD-like one (such as below). > > > > > > Please discuss. > > > > I don't see anything good coming from a change from LGPL to BSD. > > It just encourages people to create private forks for binary-only > > releases. > > +1 > > -spc > > > ___ > Tinycc-devel mailing list > Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel > ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
It was thus said that the Great Daniel Glöckner once stated: > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 03:40:43PM +0200, grischka wrote: > > So the questions is: Do you people want, is it possible, what > > would it take - to change our tinycc code's license from LGPL > > to a BSD-like one (such as below). > > > > Please discuss. > > I don't see anything good coming from a change from LGPL to BSD. > It just encourages people to create private forks for binary-only > releases. +1 -spc ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
Le mardi 30 avril 2013 15:40:43, grischka a écrit : > > ... and since I got permission from Fabrice to use his > > original tcc code under a BSD license ... > > Actually it's a long standing offer from Fabrice, also repeated > lately on the occasion of the 0.9.26 release. Yes, sorry. I weant to send an email for that but delayed way too much. > > So the questions is: Do you people want, is it possible, what > would it take - to change our tinycc code's license from LGPL > to a BSD-like one (such as below). As I already said privately, I'm fine with BSD-2-clause. But if Daniel is against that basically removes support for ARM architecture. Yes there would be some private fork but I think most of them would not add much (I might be wrong). If a fork adds a lot of code it has an interest to get merged. However, tcc is not fast moving so I might be wrong in this specific case. > > Please discuss. > > --- grischka Best regards, Thomas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 03:40:43PM +0200, grischka wrote: > So the questions is: Do you people want, is it possible, what > would it take - to change our tinycc code's license from LGPL > to a BSD-like one (such as below). > > Please discuss. I don't see anything good coming from a change from LGPL to BSD. It just encourages people to create private forks for binary-only releases. And I have yet to hear anyone complain on this list that they can't use TinyCC in their product because they can't link dynamically to the library. Daniel ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
[Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?
... and since I got permission from Fabrice to use his original tcc code under a BSD license ... Actually it's a long standing offer from Fabrice, also repeated lately on the occasion of the 0.9.26 release. So the questions is: Do you people want, is it possible, what would it take - to change our tinycc code's license from LGPL to a BSD-like one (such as below). Please discuss. --- grischka * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy * of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal * in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights * to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell * copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is * furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: * * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in * all copies or substantial portions of the Software. * * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR * IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL * THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER * LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, * OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN * THE SOFTWARE. ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
