From: Dzonatas <dzo...@dz...> - 2007-04-12 07:05:39
|
Hello, Is there anything in the MinGW toolset that will not follow foot into the GPLv3 when it become finalized? -- |
From: Greg C. <chi...@co...> - 2007-04-12 07:55:38
|
On 2007-4-12 7:04 UTC, Dzonatas wrote: > > Is there anything in the MinGW toolset that will not follow foot into > the GPLv3 when it become finalized? Until the final version is published, any reply is speculative. I'm not sure what you mean by "the MinGW toolset"; I'd define it as the following: - gnu gcc and gnu binutils - mingw-runtime - w32api I suppose every gnu package would be released under a revised license--presumably retaining any current "special exceptions". I suppose the other packages would retain their present licensing arrangements, which AFAIK would be compatible with GPLv3. What negative outcome are you concerned about? - That one part of the toolset would become incompatible with another? - That your ability to use the toolset would be restricted? - That your employer's legal ability to enforce proprietary restrictions might be compromised by use of the toolset? |
From: Chris S. <ir0...@gm...> - 2007-04-12 09:22:55
|
> I'm not sure what you mean by "the MinGW toolset"; I'd define it > as the following: > - gnu gcc and gnu binutils > - mingw-runtime > - w32api > I suppose every gnu package would be released under a revised > license--presumably retaining any current "special exceptions". > I suppose the other packages would retain their present licensing > arrangements, which AFAIK would be compatible with GPLv3. FWIW, the mingw-runtime and w32api have no copyright and are released as Public Domain, meaning that it can be used in OpenSource and Commercial products without licensing issues. Chris -- Chris Sutcliffe http://ir0nh34d.googlepages.com http://ir0nh34d.blogspot.com http://emergedesktop.org |
From: Keith M. <kei...@to...> - 2007-04-12 10:12:47
|
Chris Sutcliffe wrote, quoting Greg Chicares, in reply to Dzonatas: >> I'm not sure what you mean by "the MinGW toolset"; I'd define it >> as the following: >> - gnu gcc and gnu binutils >> - mingw-runtime >> - w32api >> I suppose every gnu package would be released under a revised >> license--presumably retaining any current "special exceptions". >> I suppose the other packages would retain their present licensing >> arrangements, which AFAIK would be compatible with GPLv3. > > FWIW, the mingw-runtime and w32api have no copyright and are > released as Public Domain, meaning that [they] can be used in > OpenSource and Commercial products without licensing issues. And the remainder of the suite is GPL-2. Future directions will depend on what the maintainers of those packages, (that's primarily the GCC and the binutils maintainers), choose as their licensing policy, when GPL-3 is ratified. Whatever they choose, all versions currently released will remain available under GPL-2; (nothing they do in the future can revoke the freedom of redistribution that has already been granted under GPL-2, for existing releases). Regards, Keith. |
From: Dzonatas <dzo...@dz...> - 2007-04-15 18:50:54
|
Keith MARSHALL wrote: >> FWIW, the mingw-runtime and w32api have no copyright and are >> released as Public Domain, meaning that [they] can be used in >> OpenSource and Commercial products without licensing issues. >> > > And the remainder of the suite is GPL-2. Future directions will > depend on what the maintainers of those packages, (that's primarily > the GCC and the binutils maintainers), choose as their licensing > policy, when GPL-3 is ratified. Whatever they choose, all versions > currently released will remain available under GPL-2; (nothing they > do in the future can revoke the freedom of redistribution that has > already been granted under GPL-2, for existing releases). > Thank you for this information. It appears transitions will happen easier than expected. =) -- |
From: Greg C. <chi...@co...> - 2007-04-12 10:57:42
|
On 2007-4-12 9:22 UTC, Chris Sutcliffe wrote: [On 2007-4-12 7:55 UTC, Greg Chicares wrote...] >> - mingw-runtime >> - w32api >> I suppose [those] would retain their present licensing >> arrangements, which AFAIK would be compatible with GPLv3. > > FWIW, the mingw-runtime and w32api have no copyright and are released > as Public Domain, meaning that it can be used in OpenSource and > Commercial products without licensing issues. Would we consider mingwex part of mingw-runtime? http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/winsup/mingw/mingwex/math/powl.c?annotate=1.5&cvsroot=src 58: Cephes Math Library Release 2.7: May, 1998 59: Copyright 1984, 1991, 1998 by Stephen L. Moshier I don't find that worrisome because I looked into it years ago (see http://howto.gp.mines.edu/local-apps/grace-5.1.21/cephes-license.email or search for 'moshier' here: http://sources.redhat.com/newlib/COPYING.NEWLIB e.g.). But I wouldn't go so far as to say it's in the public domain. |