This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [v3] Re: libstdc++ license
- To: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Subject: Re: [v3] Re: libstdc++ license
- From: Loren James Rittle <rittle at latour dot rsch dot comm dot mot dot com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 22:06:55 -0500 (CDT)
- Cc: bkoz at redhat dot com
- Organization: Networks and Infrastructure Lab (IL02/2240), Motorola Labs
- References: <20010624150243.A22368@shell7.ba.best.com>
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.1010625141005.13684A-100000@taarna.cygnus.com>
you write:
>
> I agree with Nathan, and would like to see Phil's patch re-applied. Gaby?
> Jason? Phil? Loren?
Since you asked me explicitly (and, as always, only giving my personal
opinion here and, BTW, I'm not a lawyer for a reason...):
I have no problem contributing changes to the STL files as they are
currently copyrighted. I have no problem contributing changes to the
STL files with the extra FSF copyright attached. As a user of g++
(especially one that only gives away source code never binaries), I
have no problem using the STL files either way.
Thus, I have no problem with Phil's patch. However, I think the FSF
might. If you read the existing copyright closely, you will note that
it contains a form of the so-called "advertising clause". If my
memory serves me (and there are no special arrangements with HP and
SGI that I am currently unaware of), then adding the GPL+"special
exception" to these files should trigger the same reaction from the
FSF as it did with the BSD license containing those same terms; which
is: a loud pronouncement that an advertising clause is incompatible
with the GPL.
The upshot is that I think an FSF copyright lawyer should be consulted
before Phil's patch is re-applied. We should also consider (or let an
FSF lawyer consider) whether it is our duty to inform users of
libstdc++ that they must include the HP and SGI copyright statements
in any documentation they ship with a system built against the STL we
include in libstdc++. I.e. unless the FSF got special permission that
those clauses don't apply to our end-users, we can't remove that
burdon for the users of the library.
Regards,
Loren
--
Loren J. Rittle
Senior Staff Software Engineer, Distributed Object Technology Lab
Networks and Infrastructure Research Lab (IL02/2240), Motorola Labs
rittle@rsch.comm.mot.com, KeyID: 2048/ADCE34A5, FDC0292446937F2A240BC07D42763672