[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Shared Libraries and naming conventions

On Sun, 30 May 1999, Joel Klecker wrote:

> At 17:04 +0100 1999-05-30, Alan Cox wrote:
> >   As a special exception, if you link this library with files
> >   compiled with a GNU compiler to produce an executable, this does
> >   not cause the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General
> >   Public License.  This exception does not however invalidate any
> >   other reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU
> >   General Public License.  */
> >And note a -GNU- compiler. Not even another GPL compiler. You can't even
> >use it with a competing free software product to produce non free binaries.
> I see what this is, this is clearly copied from the libgcc.a special 
> exception, without consideration of its results.
> Have you discussed this with RMS?
> I'm certain he'd agree to relicense the it under LGPL, as was done 
> with several other parts of glibc.

Andreas Jaeger just brought the issue up on the libc hackers list. 

The first respondent admitted that it is a problem with one breath, and
then said that since gcc is the _only_ compiler you can build glibc
with, that the problem isn't as bad as it seems (gag me with a spoon).

Are there any other sections of the code, beside libio, that are effected
by this license? We talked in February about the difficulties of a libc
fork and maintaining an LSB libc with our limited resources. However, if
it is only libio that is effected, maintaining a fork of that library
might be feasible. At least the threat it a real possibility, and might be
persuasive in getting the license "fixed".

I have, for a while now, been troubled by the "exclusionary" principles of
the GPL. Hell, it even objects to residing with other "free" licenses! The
isolationist attitude of the GPL does not allow _any_ interaction with
proprietary software. I believe this attitude to be unproductive in the
long run, and keeps Free Software from ever "competing" with other
software on "even ground". The rest of the free software community seems
to be working very hard to integrate the other, proprietary, systems into
the overall software environment. The kernel alone practices this approach
by providing access to as many file systems as possible. This includes
several "proprietary" systems. Wine and Wabi, are also example of
"inclusive" behavior. I have been working on a Free License that would
deal with these problems "face on". If anyone else is interested I can
post the current version.

Back to the problem at hand...

It seems that the problem only has two reasonable solutions at this time:

1 Get FSF to change the license... or

2 Fork libio.

Do we have any other "real" options?

One, final, small question: "Can we discuss the technical aspects of the
naming convention?" ;-)


_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide"  _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Reply to: