5 ms·
This is actually isn't uncommon. The GCC makes the similar exceptions. Libs/Snippets from peephole optimizations are technically covered by the compiler's lice
by valarauca1 10y ago
This is actually isn't uncommon.
The GCC makes the similar exceptions. Libs/Snippets from peephole optimizations are technically covered by the compiler's license as they're part of the compiler. So the output program is in a sense a derivative work. This really hasn't been challenged in court, but you can see how this could invoke a rather lengthy case if you say pissed off Peter Thiel.
To cover this the GCC's GPL license has exceptions to the GPLv3 for output programs, or programs that use it's headers. You really can't argue the GCC isn't licensed by the GPL. It merely has a handful of exceptions that are specific to the legal oddity of a program who's copyright copyrights derived works, and its sole purpose is to produce derived works.
The Linux Kernel has similar exceptions as syscall functions are inserted into your program at load time. And really everything links against it's headers.
Makes sense the LLVM would do the same
- paxcoder 10y agoGPLv3 has a framework for exceptions built-in. Apache 2.0 supposes no exceptions. The question is why FSF/SFLC thought it insufficient to simply enumerate the exceptions alongside the license.
- valarauca1 10y agoGPLv3 has a framework for exceptions built-in Yes Section 7. But GPLv2 (Linux Kernel) doesn't. My core point is adding exceptions to FOSS compiler licenses is slightly required to avoid technical legal ambiguity with their output.
- DannyBee 10y agoThe exceptions provide gpl2 compatibility, gplv3 is already compatible with Apache 2. As for why nobody did this before, i suspect the fsf wanted folks to move to gplv3, and neither side really wanted to do something like this. There are disadvantages to doing it like this, but it was felt this was the best we could really do. Remember also that both those organizations have very different goals.
- paxcoder 10y agoASLv2 is compatible with GPLv3 (works under ASLv2 can be inorporated into GPLv3), but not vice versa. This is because GPL has (arguably useful) restrictions which ASL does not. A common goal of ASLv2 and GPLv3 is the restriction on patents, which makes them both incompatible with GPLv2. This is an important difference which makes GPLv3 a superior freedom-preserving license to v2, and the resulting incompatibility is not a matter of interpretation - you can't downgrade licenses. It is unfortunate that Linux was not licensed as GPLv2 or later which is, alongside Linus' support for TiVoization(DrM) and the corporate lawyers' spreading of FUD, the reason why we're still forced to discuss GPLv2.
- bluejekyll 10y agoI think what's uncommon is having a lawyer on hand to actually review the legalise. I could add that section to mine, and it might not standup to court review.