From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/3259 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: LM Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Licensing. Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 08:32:01 -0400 Message-ID: References: <7DA8A203-CFF2-4559-AA2C-7CF38B5DD28E@palsenberg.com> <1367184878.18069.171@driftwood> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01681d1628627304db9330dd X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1367325138 8023 80.91.229.3 (30 Apr 2013 12:32:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:32:18 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-3263-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Apr 30 14:32:19 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UX9jC-0002D8-9r for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:32:14 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 32077 invoked by uid 550); 30 Apr 2013 12:32:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 32069 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2013 12:32:12 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=IVNmTUmu3caQVoFzP3n9CHZtHUbQZBmTk/S/6OfqGG0=; b=ZqLTG3uStPpSLQiWiwdwoEV6RDuDd2V8rLDNfhq4aflPH87moMic/9CARn5XG8qW/i YsIyZoEjjGTAKHq12W66reDS85wX5c7jhlc8feTUSkHKMnBjWkr1qoXuHECdQfZLBRDQ ZrDDU5iub139P2UYPJwbEd7I1UMYSHy2/1iqKYSiKJ4t1p+VeCN0txawOTlmSeGwjoSx hW8pATEbiLADgIiE2GyfPxcIIiOtYtujqL7Rml5BJLUZKRceP8Qd1WEQIjT55BAfR1cM RvKUQaws0T86HEzZeucHACwR8jdEFvah7VS6OooLiGwAApe3DSkWWMnZb7K+qDeYmvnS J7Fg== X-Received: by 10.15.22.76 with SMTP id e52mr135434736eeu.7.1367325121461; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 05:32:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1367184878.18069.171@driftwood> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:3259 Archived-At: --089e01681d1628627304db9330dd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 While the license subject has been brought up, would appreciate any clarification on how licenses/copyrights might apply to runtime libraries like musl and distributing executables. Here's what I've dug up trying to read through the 'legalese'. gcc provides a runtime exception ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html ), so according to it, you should be able to use the license of your choice with your executable and don't have to use the compiler's license. Linux kernel developers don't consider the API an issue and have a note ( https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING ) about not copyrighting kernel services through normal system calls. Zvi and I were discussing copyright and he mentioned the case of Oracle against Google and that APIs were found not copyrightable. So, if you build a program with gcc and musl as the runtime library, do you need to distribute any kind of licensing information other than whatever you decide to license your own program under? I was reading some information on mingw-w64. It uses a runtime made up of a variety of licenses (from BSD to LGPL). There's mention of distributing a runtime license with executables created by the compiler: http://www.math.washington.edu/tex-archive/systems/texlive/tlnet/tlpkg/installer/COPYING.MinGW-runtime.txt With mingw (the original from www.mingw.org), the runtime has always been in the public domain in the past, so needing to supply the end user with a runtime license when distributing executables was never necessary. Was surprised to read the recommendation that one needed a runtime license to distribute programs with mingw-w64. My understanding was that one doesn't need this sort of thing for gcc/glibc on standard Linux systems. I'm wondering what applies to musl and what doesn't. Does one need to distribute the musl license when distributing executables built with it? Does the gcc compiler runtime exception cover the issue or is there something else that applies? Also can't help wondering how it applies to llvm (http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#license) and executables built with it. I agree with the previous comment posted about the more licenses involved the more confusing it can get. Any further information or clarifications would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Sincerely, Laura --089e01681d1628627304db9330dd Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable While the license subject has been brought up, would appreciate any clarifi= cation on how licenses/copyrights might apply to runtime libraries like mus= l and distributing executables.=A0

Here's what I've dug up = trying to read through the 'legalese'.=A0 gcc provides a runtime ex= ception ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html ), s= o according to it, you should be able to use the license of your choice wit= h your executable and don't have to use the compiler's license.=A0 = Linux kernel developers don't consider the API an issue and have a note= ( https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING ) about not copyr= ighting kernel services through normal system calls.=A0 Zvi and I were disc= ussing copyright and he mentioned the case of Oracle against Google and tha= t APIs were found not copyrightable.=A0 So, if you build a program with gcc= and musl as the runtime library, do you need to distribute any kind of lic= ensing information other than whatever you decide to license your own progr= am under?

I was reading some information on mingw-w64.=A0 It uses a runtime made = up of a variety of licenses (from BSD to LGPL).=A0
There's mention = of distributing a runtime license with executables created by the compiler:=
http://www.math.washington.edu/= tex-archive/systems/texlive/tlnet/tlpkg/installer/COPYING.MinGW-runtime.txt=
With mingw (the original from www.mingw.or= g), the runtime has always been in the public domain in the past, so ne= eding to supply the end user with a runtime license when distributing execu= tables was never necessary.=A0 Was surprised to read the recommendation tha= t one needed a runtime license to distribute programs with mingw-w64.=A0 My= understanding was that one doesn't need this sort of thing for gcc/gli= bc on standard Linux systems.=A0 I'm wondering what applies to musl and= what doesn't.=A0 Does one need to distribute the musl license when dis= tributing executables built with it?=A0 Does the gcc compiler runtime excep= tion cover the issue or is there something else that applies?=A0 Also can&#= 39;t help wondering how it applies to llvm (http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#li= cense) and executables built with it.

I agree with the previous comment posted about the more licenses involv= ed the more confusing it can get.=A0 Any further information or clarificati= ons would be greatly appreciated.=A0 Thanks.

Sincerely,
Laura

--089e01681d1628627304db9330dd--