stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "C. Bergström" <>
Subject Re: [REPORT] Apache C++ Standard Library (stdcxx)
Date Thu, 13 Sep 2012 17:12:55 GMT
On 09/13/12 11:40 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> On Sep 13, 2012, at 8:43 AM, Jim Jagielski<>  wrote:
>> Is this all about your point of view that even though Apache stdcxx
>> is designed as a library, esp as a system library, that GPLv2 programs
>> cannot use and link to it because the FSF says that the ALv2
>> is incompatible w/ GPLv2? And all this despite the fact that
>> GPLv2 makes specific accommodations for system libraries...
>> Is that the actionable item of which you speak? You want the
>> ASF to "verify" something in the GPLv2?
> FWIW (for completeness) let me state that *every* lawyer I've
> spoken to says that since stdcxx is designed *AS* a system
> library, and as a *standard* system library, the whole "GPLv2
> and ALv2 licenses are incompatible" argument is completely moot.
> The idea that one could not, for example, replace the current stdcxx
> library in FreeBSD with Apache stdcxx *because of the GPLv2 and ALv2
> license "incompatibility"* is completely bogus. Since this basic
> argument is baseless, the idea that somehow stdcxx needs to be
> licensed under something else *because of this* is also bogus.
> PS: Even if the stdcxx library was under a commercial license, and/or
>      completely proprietary, since it would be a standard, system
>      library, GPLv2 applications would *still* be able to link
>      to it... The GPL does NOT force system libs to even be
>      open source.
We appreciate you telling the choir, but it doesn't help resolve this.  
How to best proceed?  Is legal-discuss the best way to go forward or 
something else?

[System lib exception was of course brought up during the BSD 
discussion, but it was said that system libraries are usually shipped by 
default with the system.  This may not always be the case with STDCXX.]

View raw message