* Russ Allbery:
Clearly no one else in the world is worrying about this; there's lots of
GPLv2-only software out there and all the distributions are happily
distributing binaries built with current GCC without worrying about this.
I'm not sure to what extent we can use that as an excuse,
Hi,
Interesting thread.
On 23/05/13 at 13:34 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Do you have an opinion on how we should make these decisions as a project?
Is this a place where possibly we should seek the opinion of legal
counsel?
Our contact point at our legal counsel (SFLC) is Mishi Choudhary
Hi Lucas,
In a discussion of mksh-static (see http://bugs.debian.org/709382), the
question of GPL compliance for the source code of the components of libgcc
and libc that are incorporated into binaries came up. mksh-static of
course links statically and therefore pulls in substantial portions of
Russ Allbery wrote:
mksh-static of
course links statically and therefore pulls in substantial portions of
library source, but there are parts of libgcc and possibly libc that are
always incorporated into binaries, even ones that are
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
mksh-static of course links statically and therefore pulls in
substantial portions of library source, but there are parts of libgcc
and possibly libc that are always incorporated into binaries, even ones
that are dynamically
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 01:34:08PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
In a discussion of mksh-static (see http://bugs.debian.org/709382), the
question of GPL compliance for the source code of the components of libgcc
and libc that are incorporated into binaries came up. mksh-static of
course links
Russ Allbery dixit:
If we do need to preserve source for the libcc and libc components
incorporated into binary builds, that's going to mean Built-Using for
nearly the whole archive, and a lot of complexity on the DAK side. That's
obviously not very desirable. We would rather decide that we
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
FWIW, my understanding is that this is one of the issues that GPLv3
attempted to bugfix with its clarification of the System Libraries
exception. So to the extent that this is an issue, I believe it only
applies to works that are GPLv2 only.
Indeed,
Russ Allbery dixit:
of the GPLv2, the GPLv2 itself requires that all of the *source* for the
binary be distributed under the GPLv2. And the libgcc *source* is only
available under the GPLv3, and the runtime exception doesn't allow one to
distribute the *source* under different terms, only the
On Thu, 23 May 2013, Steve Langasek wrote:
FWIW, my understanding is that this is one of the issues that GPLv3
attempted to bugfix with its clarification of the System Libraries
exception. So to the extent that this is an issue, I believe it only
applies to works that are GPLv2 only.
Right.
Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de writes:
There’s something else about Built-Using:
Are those source packages (that would not otherwise be kept in the
archive) released along with “stable”, despite having no binary
packages?
Yes, I believe that's how the implementation works.
If not… well,
Russ Allbery dixit:
Thorsten Glaser t...@mirbsd.de writes:
If not… well, since snapshot.d.o is an official service now, I’d say,
[…]
Hm, that's an interesting point, indeed.
Are those source packages (that would not otherwise be kept in the
archive) released along with “stable”, despite
12 matches
Mail list logo
