stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: New chair and/or attic
Date Fri, 31 Aug 2012 19:37:58 GMT

On Aug 31, 2012, at 3:29 PM, Jim Jagielski <> wrote:

> On Aug 31, 2012, at 3:16 PM, C. Bergström <> wrote:
>> On 09/ 1/12 02:01 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> On Aug 31, 2012, at 2:41 PM, "C. Bergström"<>
>>>> On 09/ 1/12 01:28 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>>> Your suggestion is that, somehow, one cannot push stdcxx as part
>>>>> of the FreeBSD ports collection. And that is because it is licensed
>>>>> under ALv2.
>>>>> My response is that that suggestion is total hogwash.
>>>> That's not an authoritative response - To help resolve this maybe we could
>>>> 1) Have Apache lawyers say the same thing via a letter to FBSD foundation
>>>> or
>>>> 2) Please have this link updated and provide a reference to where FSF has
stated their revised compatibility views about APLv2 + GPLv2
>>> Ummm... system library
>>> """
>>> These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections
of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent
and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections
as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must
be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire
whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
>> armchair lawyer response not acceptable - Unless you're an Apache lawyer?
> It's quoting the GPLv2.
> I will not mention the irony of your "opposition" being the
> result of armchair lawyering...

Besides, how this is different from say, OpenSSL, is beyond me
as well. (for those curious, look at
View raw message