This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: --enable-runtime-pseudo-reloc support in cygwin, take 3.
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 07:38:23PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
So far, no problems. I'm gonna go on record in favor of this patch, in
its 4th incarnation
given that winsup/cygwin/lib/getopt.c(*) still retains its BSD licensing
and comments, there's no reason to change the (non-)license/public
domain attribution in egor's pseudo-relocs.c file. Egor's patch #4
should be able to be committed as-is.
Notice the "should" in this paragraph?
You know, I don't recall asking for legal opinions.
Now you're just being an asshole.
Then why the hell was this version of getopt.c committed to the CVS
sources in the first place? In version 1.1.4?
There is absolutely
no reason why I should trust the legal analysis of anyone who is not a
If public domain of Berkeley licensing was a huge win, then I really
wouldn't be asking anyone to fill out cygwin assignments, would I?
No, I used to read the cygwin lists, never the mingw lists. Because the
final writing phase of my dissertation has lasted so long, I've recently
tried to be a *little* more visible, update a few packages, and answer
questions/address issues where I think it's worth taking (a little) time
away from writing.
(*) winsup/cygwin/lib/getopt.c still retains the original
BSD-with-advert license which is explicitly incompatible with the GPL.
And since it is the NetBSD variant, it doesn't fall under the
"rescinded" announcement made by the Berkeley folks:
Yes, and perhaps you noticed this when I mentioned it in the mingw-dvlpr
mailing list or perhaps not.
I guess it was a mistake to let my sense of responsibility for "my"
packages override, even if only in a small part, my self-interest. I
don't need this.
And of course, you are the only person who reads cygwin-patches -- or
perhaps everyone else who reads cygwin patches has the same
comprehensive and infallible understanding of the contents of the cygwin
codebase. It's just me, the local village idiot, that was surprised to
see a BSD-with-advert file in there.
Regardless, I don't need an education of what kind of licenses are in
cygwin. I'm well aware of what's there.
As if I needed to say that. Everybody on this list, including you,
KNOWS that I'm a Ph.D. student -- I've mentioned it often enough.
Nobody would ever believe that I was a lawyer -- and you *know* that I'm
not. Should I also preface every message on programming by stating that
I'm not a professional software engineer, even if I give advice on
software architecture? It seems that IANAL disclaimers are only really
necessary on anonymous boards or larger communities without long
histories of mutual association and knowledge.
(the NetBSD folks are quite clear that they LIKE the advertisement
clause in their license)
However, the FreeBSD folks DO abide by the "rescind clause 3" decision;
perhaps we should replace our (modified) getopt.c with a similarly
modified one from FreeBSD?
There's a conspicuous lack of an IANAL here. Odd.
In any case, nobody is stupid enough to think ANYTHING on this list
constitutes an ACTUAL binding legal opinion...
My earlier message conflated two issues. (1) is that public domain
sources like egor's could probably be accepted into cygwin's CVS,
without disturbing Red Hat's dual licensing scheme. (see the "could" in
that sentence? similar to the "should" in the sentence above? Both of
which are indicative of a non-authoritative personal opinion?) I
pointed out getopt.c as an example of code that is distributed by Red
Hat, under that dual license, as part of cygwin, but where the file
itself contains a different (compatible) license. Like newlib.
However, when I noticed issue (2) below, I probably should have split
the message into two parts, ignored getopt.c entirely, and instead based
the "compatibility of license" argument on the similarity between
cgywin(sec.10 GPL) vs. newlib(LGPL,BSDnoadvert,and 7 other free
cygwin(sec.10 GPL) vs. pseudo-relocs(public domain - a "free" license
according to OSI).
Unfortunately, I THEN noticed that getopt.c was NOT actually a
compatible license (and as such, muddied the waters). I pointed out
that SECOND issue in the same email -- to the detriment of the argument
w.r.t. issue #1. Sorry for the confusion. And I hope the info above
answers Danny's question.
But I'm out of this thread. Egor, you're on your own. Ditto Ralf's ld
patches. I'm no longer going to waste my time testing contributions if
both the contribution and the testing are treated with disdain.