Re: [REPORT] Apache C++ Standard Library (stdcxx)
On Sep 12, 2012, at 9:51 AM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: On 09/12/12 05:39 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: DESCRIPTION * There was some licensing FUD discussed on the list, mostly to promote a rationale for moving the project elsewhere and/or releasing stdcxx under a different license. This has (hopefully) been clarified. You willfully ignore the point and there is a clear need for an actionable item here. Should someone email legal-discuss or what's the correct process for this? What actionable item? --- Once again - This is not about *my* views, your views or your cousin bob's views. If/when STDCXX ships to a large community of users their views may differ - At the very least the FSF has clearly stated their views which gives *others* concern. This point of objection needs to be resolved and we appreciate your help in doing so.
Re: [REPORT] Apache C++ Standard Library (stdcxx)
On Sep 13, 2012, at 8:06 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Sep 12, 2012, at 9:51 AM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: On 09/12/12 05:39 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: DESCRIPTION * There was some licensing FUD discussed on the list, mostly to promote a rationale for moving the project elsewhere and/or releasing stdcxx under a different license. This has (hopefully) been clarified. You willfully ignore the point and there is a clear need for an actionable item here. Should someone email legal-discuss or what's the correct process for this? What actionable item? --- Once again - This is not about *my* views, your views or your cousin bob's views. If/when STDCXX ships to a large community of users their views may differ - At the very least the FSF has clearly stated their views which gives *others* concern. This point of objection needs to be resolved and we appreciate your help in doing so. Is this all about your point of view that even though Apache stdcxx is designed as a library, esp as a system library, that GPLv2 programs cannot use and link to it because the FSF says that the ALv2 is incompatible w/ GPLv2? And all this despite the fact that GPLv2 makes specific accommodations for system libraries... Is that the actionable item of which you speak? You want the ASF to verify something in the GPLv2?
Re: [REPORT] Apache C++ Standard Library (stdcxx)
On Sep 13, 2012, at 8:43 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: Is this all about your point of view that even though Apache stdcxx is designed as a library, esp as a system library, that GPLv2 programs cannot use and link to it because the FSF says that the ALv2 is incompatible w/ GPLv2? And all this despite the fact that GPLv2 makes specific accommodations for system libraries... Is that the actionable item of which you speak? You want the ASF to verify something in the GPLv2? FWIW (for completeness) let me state that *every* lawyer I've spoken to says that since stdcxx is designed *AS* a system library, and as a *standard* system library, the whole GPLv2 and ALv2 licenses are incompatible argument is completely moot. The idea that one could not, for example, replace the current stdcxx library in FreeBSD with Apache stdcxx *because of the GPLv2 and ALv2 license incompatibility* is completely bogus. Since this basic argument is baseless, the idea that somehow stdcxx needs to be licensed under something else *because of this* is also bogus. PS: Even if the stdcxx library was under a commercial license, and/or completely proprietary, since it would be a standard, system library, GPLv2 applications would *still* be able to link to it... The GPL does NOT force system libs to even be open source.
Re: [REPORT] Apache C++ Standard Library (stdcxx)
On 09/13/12 11:40 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Sep 13, 2012, at 8:43 AM, Jim Jagielskij...@jagunet.com wrote: Is this all about your point of view that even though Apache stdcxx is designed as a library, esp as a system library, that GPLv2 programs cannot use and link to it because the FSF says that the ALv2 is incompatible w/ GPLv2? And all this despite the fact that GPLv2 makes specific accommodations for system libraries... Is that the actionable item of which you speak? You want the ASF to verify something in the GPLv2? FWIW (for completeness) let me state that *every* lawyer I've spoken to says that since stdcxx is designed *AS* a system library, and as a *standard* system library, the whole GPLv2 and ALv2 licenses are incompatible argument is completely moot. The idea that one could not, for example, replace the current stdcxx library in FreeBSD with Apache stdcxx *because of the GPLv2 and ALv2 license incompatibility* is completely bogus. Since this basic argument is baseless, the idea that somehow stdcxx needs to be licensed under something else *because of this* is also bogus. PS: Even if the stdcxx library was under a commercial license, and/or completely proprietary, since it would be a standard, system library, GPLv2 applications would *still* be able to link to it... The GPL does NOT force system libs to even be open source. We appreciate you telling the choir, but it doesn't help resolve this. How to best proceed? Is legal-discuss the best way to go forward or something else? [System lib exception was of course brought up during the BSD discussion, but it was said that system libraries are usually shipped by default with the system. This may not always be the case with STDCXX.]
Re: [REPORT] Apache C++ Standard Library (stdcxx)
On 09/13/12 07:43 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Is that the actionable item of which you speak? You want the ASF to verify something in the GPLv2? No - We want to discuss the Apache foundation transferring their rights granted under the contributor agreement to another open source foundation.
Re: [REPORT] Apache C++ Standard Library (stdcxx)
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 1:12 PM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: [System lib exception was of course brought up during the BSD discussion, but it was said that system libraries are usually shipped by default with the system. This may not always be the case with STDCXX.] In order to best answer this questions, could one of the BSD Internet Attorneys please provide the legal definitions for the following terms: 1. system 2. libraries 3. are 4. usually 5. shipped 6. by 7. default 8. with 9. the Thank you. --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman KDE e.V. stefan.tele...@gmail.com
Re: [REPORT] Apache C++ Standard Library (stdcxx)
On Sep 13, 2012, at 1:24 PM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: On 09/13/12 07:43 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Is that the actionable item of which you speak? You want the ASF to verify something in the GPLv2? No - We want to discuss the Apache foundation transferring their rights granted under the contributor agreement to another open source foundation. As of now, I see no reason for such a discussion. The ALv2 allows for forks and should the project decide that it no longer wishes to be here, then a move to the Attic would be the topic of discussion for *this* PMC. Anything else is, imo, premature and self-serving.
Re: [REPORT] Apache C++ Standard Library (stdcxx)
On Sep 13, 2012, at 1:12 PM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: We appreciate you telling the choir, but it doesn't help resolve this. How to best proceed? Is legal-discuss the best way to go forward or something else? Why? What are you looking for? And who is the expected audience? Again, I have no desire to use Apache legal resources to resolve or discuss issues that the PMC itself does not have. I see this as your own personal venture, in which case you are free to use your own resources. If, however, you can formally and officially connect us with someone who is refusing to use/bundle Apache stdcxx (and has the authority to make such a decision), then the use of legal-discuss would be warranted.
Re: [REPORT] Apache C++ Standard Library (stdcxx)
Sorry. I've been Reply-All'ing. On Sep 13, 2012, at 1:31 PM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote: On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 10:12 AM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: Is legal-discuss the best way to go forward or something else? I'm not sure what the question is, but it doesn't seem like a question for board@. Legal questions are handled by Apache's legal affairs team. If you don't see this addressed in http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html then file an issue at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL. Doug
Re: [REPORT] Apache C++ Standard Library (stdcxx)
On 09/12/12 05:39 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: DESCRIPTION * There was some licensing FUD discussed on the list, mostly to promote a rationale for moving the project elsewhere and/or releasing stdcxx under a different license. This has (hopefully) been clarified. You willfully ignore the point and there is a clear need for an actionable item here. Should someone email legal-discuss or what's the correct process for this? --- Once again - This is not about *my* views, your views or your cousin bob's views. If/when STDCXX ships to a large community of users their views may differ - At the very least the FSF has clearly stated their views which gives *others* concern. This point of objection needs to be resolved and we appreciate your help in doing so.
