Comment by lloeki
3 days ago
> I could easily imagine it being left out of glibc because [...]
... its license is BSD-2-Clause ;)
hence "political"
3 days ago
> I could easily imagine it being left out of glibc because [...]
... its license is BSD-2-Clause ;)
hence "political"
Huh? Bsd-style licenses are fully compatible with gpl.
The problem is exactly this: Facebook becomes the upstream of a key part of your system.
And Facebook can just walk away from the project. Like it did just now.
They are compatible but that's not the point.
If it were included it would instantly become a LGPL hard-fork because of any subsequently added line of code, if not by "virality" of the glibc license, at least because any glibc author code addition would be LGPL, per GNU project policy/ideology.
Also also this would he a hard bar to pass: https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/CopyrightFSForDisclaim
As I recall this is what prevented Apple from contributing C blocks† back to upstream GCC.
† https://github.com/lloeki/cblocks-clobj
What prevents apple from working with gpl-style licenses is strict hatred towards code that they can't use without opensourcing it. So this is what prevents them from contributing to gpl projects: the need to control access to code.
Llvm is OK for them from this point of view: upstream is open but they can maintain and distribute their proprietary fork.
5 replies →