| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Here we go again...Here we go again...Posted Jul 31, 2009 7:25 UTC (Fri) by khim (guest, #9252)In reply to: Fatal oversight by bronson Parent article: A new GCC runtime library license snag?
If the problem were truly that the GPLv2 uses imprecise terminology then all the FSF has to do is release a GPL2.1 with language bugfixes They did so - it's called GPLv3. even just an addendum describing language intent. There are no need to do this for FSF-licensed software (GPLv3 serves as such clarification) and "addenum" will not be automatically attached to the text of license used by git/udev/etc. The most obvious thing the FSF can do is, gosh, simply let the runtime library be usable anywhere. It is useful anywhere (for free and proprietary programs alike) - where other side does not prohibit it. Or, they could roll back to the 2008 license, probably with *minor* changes: http://lwn.net/Articles/316835/ (like foom says). I'm sure they have other options too. I see no such options - except one: return back to the GPLv2. And FSF surely will do no such things. Reasons were explained well in advance. This switch was planned more then two years ago - if people wanted to raise racket the time was back in 2007, not today.
(Log in to post comments)
Here we go again... Posted Aug 6, 2009 10:10 UTC (Thu) by SEMW (guest, #52697) [Link]
> It is useful anywhere (for free and proprietary programs alike) - where other side does not prohibit it.
Of course it's "useful anywhere... where the other side does not prohibit it". But the point is that it is written in such a way that the GPL v2 -- a widely used and free license -- *does* prohibit it (if the runtime library is distributed with the binary). To plead that this is the GPL2's fault is trivially true, but missing the point (in a similar way to Joerg Shilling's defending Sun's use of the GPL-incompatible CDDL on the grounds that it's a completely free license, and if the FSF thinks it's incompatible with the GPL, that's not Sun's problem).
> if people wanted to raise racket the time was back in 2007, not today.
That is bordering on disingenuous. As you know, no-one noticed this problem in 2007, it's only just been pointed out.
This is not GPLv2 fault, sorry... Posted Aug 9, 2009 11:58 UTC (Sun) by khim (guest, #9252) [Link] But the point is that it is written in such a way that the GPL v2 -- a widely used and free license -- *does* prohibit it (if the runtime library is distributed with the binary). Nope. It does not prohibit anything if you apply it correctly. Please read GPLv2 - specifically paragraph 9. GPLv3 does the same in paragraph 14. The problems only arise when someone applies GPLv2 in such a way as to create the problems - but then the conventional wisdom says it's not a problem of GPL... To plead that this is the GPL2's fault is trivially true, but missing the point (in a similar way to Joerg Shilling's defending Sun's use of the GPL-incompatible CDDL on the grounds that it's a completely free license, and if the FSF thinks it's incompatible with the GPL, that's not Sun's problem). I can't see your point. In both cases copyright owners did what they thought was right. The results are unfortunate: Linux does not include ZFS as the result, Git should be compiled with GCC 4.3. The situation was somewhat different in these two cases: Sun's decision created problem immediately, Git's developer's decision created problem few years down the road - but it's not like they had no warning: indeed, the warning is embedded in the very text of the license they've used!
This is not GPLv2 fault, sorry... Posted Aug 12, 2009 12:36 UTC (Wed) by SEMW (guest, #52697) [Link]
> Git's developer's decision created problem few years down the road - but it's not like they had no warning: indeed, the warning is embedded in the very text of the license they've used!
Being there and being apparent are very different things. The current problem is as a result of an interaction between the gcc runtime exception and the GPLv2 that, whilst it was in a trivial sense there all along, no-one had noticed until Kalle Niemitalo pointed it out very recently. (If I am mistaken and it was, in fact, known before, please say so; as I said in the other thread, the story does not give that impression).
You can study ZFC for quite a while without deducing Fermat's last theorem, even though it is a logical consequence of them. And the fact that the two licenses interact in this way might have been there all along, but it was apparently sufficiently non-obvious that, yes, the git developers could certainly be said to have had no warning.
|
|
||||||||||||