This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC 0/1] Contributing a compound object to the libpthread
Allright gentlemen,
I see your concerns and I accept that.
Just two notes I would like to add.
Regarding the links Adhemerval included -- those are the rules of GPL,
not the LGPL license. I did initially mention I have no problems
distrbuting free with GPL license. I was only speaking for custom
licensing in paid software which cannot be GPL.
Regarding the note of DJ Delorie -- the patent covers the
synchronization method (the approach), not a particular
implementation. You will not be able to create an implementation of
yours without violating the patent anyway. So, don't worry about the
effects of looking in the code.
That said, I understand that my idea is not going to be accepted at
this time. I would like to apoligize for you time I have taken. In
case anyone is going to change their opinions on the matter feel free
to contact me.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:06 AM, DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Adding my not-a-lawyer two cents...
>
> Oleh Derevenko <oleh.derevenko@gmail.com> writes:
>> Just out of curiosity, may I ask why? Just to blindly obey the rules?
>
> Consider that the GNU C Library is... GNU. It's owned by the FSF, and
> they make the rules when it comes to legalities, and they have lawyers
> that have done all the hard work for us too. And the project has to
> have a consistent license to avoid ambiguity. And the LGPL guarantees
> freedoms that other licenses might not.
>
> But in general, yes, we obey the rules as laid out by the copyright
> holder.
>
>> After all, I would judge based on the feature's benefits or lack of
>> those first.
>
> Unfortunately, because of the copyright and patent issues, we really
> can't even *look* at your code yet. If we did look at your code, and
> your license ended up not changing, we would be unable to be fair about
> writing similar code in the future and cleanly licensing it with a
> different license. Anyone who read your code would be "tainted".
>
> I admit this makes "just writing code" a bit more difficult and
> cumbersome, but that's what we have to do to protect our investments in
> our own code in today's legal environment.
--
Oleh Derevenko
-- Skype with underscore