[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.8 licensing

From: Tim Daly
Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: [Gcl-devel] 2.6.8 licensing
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 10:30:27 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100825 Thunderbird/3.1.3

 I have previously discussed the question of using GCL with Axiom.
GCL, originally ACKL, was written under IBM contract for Axiom.

Both the FSF and Stallman in direct email said there was no problem
using GCL with the mBSD code in Axiom. Note that Axiom distributes
and builds directly from the unmodified sources in the repository.
We add any patches, which we also distribute, at build time.

Since the whole philosophical point of the GPL license is to
guarantee the 4 freedoms, they are still guaranteed by this procedure.

Tim Daly

On 10/27/2010 10:28 PM, Donald Winiecki wrote:
A change to the most recent licenses will make things consistent with
FSF's current way of thinking about open source, though more
aggressive developers seem to think it's restrictive.  Given the
typical users and usual applications of GCL, this may not be an issue.

But I'm not sure -- if GCL is licensed under GPL3, does that mean that
anything built with or under it will also have to be licensed under
GPL3?  (I guess that's why Camm is querying the Axiom list.)

And copyrighting GCL under the FSF seems like a reasonable idea, but
without Camm, GCL would be fairly well static, I think.


Don Winiecki, Ed.D., Ph.D.
Boise State University, College of Engineering
Department of Instructional&  Performance Technology
1910 University Drive, Boise, Idaho 83725-2070 USA
E-mail: address@hidden
Telephone: (+01) 208 426 1899
Fax: (+01) 208 426 1970

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Camm Maguire<address@hidden>  wrote:
Greetings!  The FSF has requested that we "change the software license
to GPLv3 or later, and the documentation license FDLv1.3 or later".
By this I think they mean LGPLv3 of course.  To remain consistent with
the Debian Free Software guidelines, I think we'd have to add "with no
invariant sections, no front-cover texts and no back-cover texts'" to
the doc license.  I don't see any problem with this, but I thought I'd
put this out for comment just in case anyone else does.

Separately, at some point we might want to discuss having the FSF hold
the copyright, if that is even possible, let alone desirable.

I'm considering removing the binutils subtree, as all targets are
working now with custreloc save ia64 and hppa, which use dlopen as
always.  One can still build against an external bfd library if
desired.  It is probably necessary to keep the local gmp copy as a
convenience as many users don't seem to have this installed.

Thoughts most welcome.

Take care,
Camm Maguire                                        address@hidden
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah

Gcl-devel mailing list

Axiom-developer mailing list

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]