Re: [Libjit-developers] Re: Libjit-developers Digest, Vol 24, Issue 1

[Thomas Cort]

Same here. I am also okay with relicensing under the "LGPL v2 or later"

On Jan 18, 2008 12:12 PM, Kirill Kononenko <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> If everyone else agrees with the relicensing I am also okay with
> relicensing under the "LGPL v2 or later".
>
>
> Cheers,
> Kirill
>
> On 04/01/2008, address@hidden
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Send Libjit-developers mailing list submissions to
> >        address@hidden
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >        http://dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libjit-developers
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >        address@hidden
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> >        address@hidden
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Libjit-developers digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >   1. Re: libjit changes for archs with native ints     (pointer sizes)
> >      greater than 32 bit (Aleksey Demakov)
> >   2. libjit licensing (Aleksey Demakov)
> >   3. Re: [Pnet-developers] libjit licensing (Aleksey Demakov)
> >   4. Re: [Pnet-developers] libjit licensing (Norbert Bollow)
> >   5. Re: [Pnet-developers] libjit licensing (Norbert Bollow)
> >   6. Re: [Pnet-developers] libjit licensing (Aleksey Demakov)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 23:34:23 +0600
> > From: "Aleksey Demakov" <address@hidden>
> > Subject: [Libjit-developers] Re: libjit changes for archs with native
> >        ints    (pointer sizes) greater than 32 bit
> > To: "Klaus Treichel" <address@hidden>
> > Cc: libjit developers <address@hidden>
> > Message-ID:
> >        <address@hidden>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > Hi Klaus,
> >
> > > On making the interpreter running the pnet hello sample on x86_64 i
> > > stepped over some code wrapped in #if JIT_NATIVE_INT32 or #if
> > > JIT_NATIVE_INT64 in jit-insn.c that confuses me.
> > >
> > > So i have one question:
> > >
> > > The type jit_int is always 4 bytes in size. So why is there this
> > > conditional compilation?
> >
> > These #ifs are for the target platform's native int not for
> > jit_int.
> >
> > > An other issue is that pointers (native int) are longs on 64 bit archs.
> > > Is it correct to set the is_nint_constant in
> > > jit_value_create_long_constant?
> > >
> >
> > What problem does it solve? I see no need for this change.
> >
> > >
> > > Doing some of the changes made pnet's hello sample run with libjit
> > > interpreter on x86_64.
> > >
> >
> > That's strange that it made a difference in your setup. These
> > changes do not seem to fix any real problem for me.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Aleksey
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 00:47:02 +0600
> > From: "Aleksey Demakov" <address@hidden>
> > Subject: [Libjit-developers] libjit licensing
> > To: "libjit developers" <address@hidden>,
> >        address@hidden
> > Message-ID:
> >        <address@hidden>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Here we go again. Just before the libjit-0.1.0 release we discussed
> > relaxing the libjit license. However his step has not been taken due
> > to some disagreements.
> >
> > I would like to bring up this issue again for the libjit-0.1.2 release.
> > The reasons for relicensing libjit are as follows:
> >
> > * other libraries with a similar scope use weaker licenses
> >  (GNU lightning - LGPL, LLVM - something BSD-like)
> >
> > * the current libjit license was already cited as one of the reasons
> >  the project using it was abandoned  (http://tromey.com/blog/?p=16)
> >  and  people keep voicing concerns about it as recently was the case
> >  with the ruby-libjit.
> >
> > So I would like to relicense libjit under LGPL v2 for the 0.1.2 release
> > As far as I remember the last time we discussed it all the major
> > contributors has already agreed on LGPL v2. Are there any abjections
> > to this now?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Aleksey
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 01:20:56 +0600
> > From: "Aleksey Demakov" <address@hidden>
> > Subject: [Libjit-developers] Re: [Pnet-developers] libjit licensing
> > To: "Norbert Bollow" <address@hidden>
> > Cc: address@hidden
> > Message-ID:
> >        <address@hidden>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > On Jan 4, 2008 1:08 AM, Norbert Bollow <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > Aleksey Demakov <address@hidden> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So I would like to relicense libjit under LGPL v2 for the 0.1.2 release
> > > > As far as I remember the last time we discussed it all the major
> > > > contributors has already agreed on LGPL v2. Are there any abjections
> > > > to this now?
> > >
> > > While I think that LGPL is a good choice of license, I think that
> > > "LGPL v2 or later" is a better choice than "LGPL v2".
> > >
> > > Or is there a spcific reason against choosing "LGPL v2 or later"?
> > >
> >
> > I personally have nothing against the "LGPL v2 or later" wording.
> >
> > But unfortunately when we discussed it we referred to it just
> > as "LGPL" without further specifics. For instance:
> >
> > http://dotgnu.org/pipermail/libjit-developers/2007-February/000089.html
> >
> > At that time v3 was not ready yet so I think it is a safe bet that
> > when we all were saying "LGPL" we all meant LGPL v2.
> >
> > Currently if it is possible to reach Rhys and others again and
> > we will be able to agree on this issue then it would be fine with
> > me. But at the moment I think I am able to interpret our old
> > agreement only in a conservative way - that is only the version
> > that existed at that time.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Aleksey
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Thu,  3 Jan 2008 20:40:38 +0100 (CET)
> > From: Norbert Bollow <address@hidden>
> > Subject: [Libjit-developers] Re: [Pnet-developers] libjit licensing
> > To: address@hidden
> > Cc: address@hidden
> > Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> >
> > Aleksey Demakov <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > > So I would like to relicense libjit under LGPL v2 for the 0.1.2 release
> > > As far as I remember the last time we discussed it all the major
> > > contributors has already agreed on LGPL v2. Are there any abjections
> > > to this now?
> >
> > While I think that LGPL is a good choice of license, I think that
> > "LGPL v2 or later" is a better choice than "LGPL v2".
> >
> > Or is there a spcific reason against choosing "LGPL v2 or later"?
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 5
> > Date: Thu,  3 Jan 2008 20:53:11 +0100 (CET)
> > From: Norbert Bollow <address@hidden>
> > Subject: [Libjit-developers] Re: [Pnet-developers] libjit licensing
> > To: address@hidden
> > Cc: address@hidden
> > Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> >
> > Aleksey Demakov <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > > > While I think that LGPL is a good choice of license, I think that
> > > > "LGPL v2 or later" is a better choice than "LGPL v2".
> > > >
> > > > Or is there a spcific reason against choosing "LGPL v2 or later"?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I personally have nothing against the "LGPL v2 or later" wording.
> > >
> > > But unfortunately when we discussed it we referred to it just
> > > as "LGPL" without further specifics. For instance:
> > >
> > > http://dotgnu.org/pipermail/libjit-developers/2007-February/000089.html
> > >
> > > At that time v3 was not ready yet so I think it is a safe bet that
> > > when we all were saying "LGPL" we all meant LGPL v2.
> >
> > Currently libjit is licensed "GPL v2 or later".
> >
> > Also, I believe that it's a general GNU policy to include the "or
> > later" option.
> >
> > Therefore I would suggest that the only reasonable way to interpret
> > a decision to change the license to "LGPL" (without specification
> > of the version number) would be to keep the "or later" part alive.
> >
> > IMO there's a major problem with "LGPL v2 only" licensing in that
> > that's not compatible with GPLv3, and that's a license compatibility
> > that IMO we should avoid breaking...
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Norbert
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 6
> > Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 01:51:02 +0600
> > From: "Aleksey Demakov" <address@hidden>
> > Subject: [Libjit-developers] Re: [Pnet-developers] libjit licensing
> > To: "Norbert Bollow" <address@hidden>
> > Cc: address@hidden
> > Message-ID:
> >        <address@hidden>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > On Jan 4, 2008 1:53 AM, Norbert Bollow <address@hidden> wrote:
> > >
> > > Currently libjit is licensed "GPL v2 or later".
> > >
> >
> > Right, I missed that.
> >
> > > Also, I believe that it's a general GNU policy to include the "or
> > > later" option.
> > >
> > > Therefore I would suggest that the only reasonable way to interpret
> > > a decision to change the license to "LGPL" (without specification
> > > of the version number) would be to keep the "or later" part alive.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, on the second thought, I agree with you.
> >
> > Anybody else?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Aleksey
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Libjit-developers mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libjit-developers
> >
> >
> > End of Libjit-developers Digest, Vol 24, Issue 1
> > ************************************************
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Libjit-developers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libjit-developers
>