stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: [REPORT] Apache C++ Standard Library (stdcxx)
Date Thu, 13 Sep 2012 12:43:07 GMT

On Sep 13, 2012, at 8:06 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:

> 
> On Sep 12, 2012, at 9:51 AM, C. Bergström <cbergstrom@pathscale.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 09/12/12 05:39 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> DESCRIPTION
>>> 
>>> * There was some licensing FUD discussed on the list, mostly to promote
>>>  a "rationale" for moving the project elsewhere and/or releasing
>>>  stdcxx under a different license. This has (hopefully) been clarified.
>> You willfully ignore the point and there is a clear need for an actionable item here.
 Should someone email legal-discuss or what's the correct process for this?
> 
> What actionable item?
> 
>> ---------------------------------------
>> Once again - This is not about *my* views, your views or your cousin bob's views.
 If/when STDCXX ships to a large community of users their views may differ - At the very least
the FSF has clearly stated their views which gives *others* concern.  This point of objection
needs to be resolved and we appreciate your help in doing so.
>> 
> 

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?
Mime
View raw message