Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

C++11 & The Long-Term Viability Of GCC Is Questioned

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by RealNC View Post
    Not really. See for example NVidia and their inability to use proper kernel APIs (DMA-BUF) for their optimus support because that API is GPLed and the kernel doesn't provide an exception for it, like it does for some other APIs:

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTIwNDI

    If the kernel actually was LGPL, they would be able to use that API.
    If you read my original post, you would see that there was more to it than that:

    Originally posted by ryao View Post
    The only thing you mentioned that is actually GPL licensed is the Linux kernel. For most practical purposes, a GPL licensed kernel is effectively the same as a GPL licensed kernel. The only differences occur when you want to distribute proprietary code as part of it or reuse code from it somewhere else.
    The post to which you replied was a correction of a typo where I had said an obvious tautology. What I had said covered your Nvidia example.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ryao View Post
      If you read my original post, you would see that there was more to it than that:

      The post to which you replied was a correction of a typo where I had said an obvious tautology. What I had said covered your Nvidia example.
      I don't see how. NVidia doesn't distribute the kernel nor do they use code from it. Also, if the kernel didn't specifically exclude userspace software from the GPL requirements, you couldn't even *run* non-GPL compatible software, because they invoke kernel routines similarly to using a GPL library. A GPL kernel is really not the same at all as an LGPL kernel.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by RealNC View Post
        I don't see how. NVidia doesn't distribute the kernel nor do they use code from it. Also, if the kernel didn't specifically exclude userspace software from the GPL requirements, you couldn't even *run* non-GPL compatible software, because they invoke kernel routines similarly to using a GPL library. A GPL kernel is really not the same at all as an LGPL kernel.
        It is for most purposes. Anyway, my point was that using the kernel (and a ton of LGPL userland software) as examples of GPL software is not representation of GPL software in general. This discussion of Nvidia is tangential to that.

        I will not clarify myself again.
        Last edited by ryao; 01-31-2013, 02:16 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ryao View Post
          You were talking about GPL-licensed software and then cited LGPL licensed software. There is a difference.
          I understood the discussion as being about strong copyleft licenses like the GPL and more permissive licenses like the BSD license. This is why I listed LGPL software too.

          In any case... MPlayer is GPL. Gecko is GPL. Gnumeric is GPL. Abiword is GPL. LibreOffice was GPL (now LGPL). FFmpeg is GPL. x264 is GPL.

          Some of them are also licensed under LGPL, MPL, or other licenses, but none of them is BSD.

          The LGPL cannot be used to force a project to change licenses. That is something that Richard Stallman has done in the past with projects that depended upon GPL-licensed libraries. It is also why there are not many GPL-licensed libraries in use today.
          Most people have agreed from the start that LGPL is a better choice for libraries. Even Stallman before he changed his mind.

          Chrome is largely open source.
          I think that you're missing my point. The most valuable part of Chrome is LGPL. There is no competitive BSD-licensed browser out there.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
            Most people have agreed from the start that LGPL is a better choice for libraries. Even Stallman before he changed his mind.
            LGPL is stupid, because it distinguish between static and dynamic linking.

            If you want to avoid bureaucracy, permissive license is your best choice.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
              Gecko is GPL.
              Gecko, and the rest of firefox (and thunderbird, and presumably the rest of mozilla software as well) is nowadays actually MPLv2. Prior to the MPLv2, they used a MPLv1/GPLv2+/LGPLv2.1+ tri-license.

              LibreOffice was GPL (now LGPL).
              I think libreoffice was LGPLv3 from the start, that was what Sun eventually relicenced OO.org as before the fork. Lately they've relicensed libreoffice to MPLv2 (by rebasing on top of the nowadays Apache-licensed Apache Openoffice), although for some reason the binaries they distribute are, for the time being at least, still LGPLv3.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
                Fluctuation? Nope.
                That article uses the exact same blackducksoftware 'data' which you already linked to, pointless.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ryao View Post
                  The LGPL cannot be used to force a project to change licenses. That is something that Richard Stallman has done in the past with projects that depended upon GPL-licensed libraries. It is also why there are not many GPL-licensed libraries in use today.
                  If a project uses a GPL licenced library then the rest of the project has to be using a GPL compatible licence, these are licence conditions, not something Richard Stallman personally enforces. Just like he can't force anyone to licence their code under GPL to begin with.

                  I certainly agree that libraries/components are a poor fit for GPL, in my opinon GPL serves it's purpose mainly when it comes to 'complete' works, like full applications/solutions. Incidentally this is also where GPL is most prevalent. Different licences serve different needs.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                    If a project uses a GPL licenced library then the rest of the project has to be using a GPL compatible licence, these are licence conditions, not something Richard Stallman personally enforces.
                    Nope. The google/oracle java abi decision negated the need to use gpl just because you are using an abi.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                      I understood the discussion as being about strong copyleft licenses like the GPL and more permissive licenses like the BSD license. This is why I listed LGPL software too.

                      In any case... MPlayer is GPL. Gecko is GPL. Gnumeric is GPL. Abiword is GPL. LibreOffice was GPL (now LGPL). FFmpeg is GPL. x264 is GPL.

                      Some of them are also licensed under LGPL, MPL, or other licenses, but none of them is BSD.
                      Most people who dislike the GPL do not mind the LGPL. :/

                      Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                      If a project uses a GPL licenced library then the rest of the project has to be using a GPL compatible licence, these are licence conditions, not something Richard Stallman personally enforces. Just like he can't force anyone to licence their code under GPL to begin with.

                      I certainly agree that libraries/components are a poor fit for GPL, in my opinon GPL serves it's purpose mainly when it comes to 'complete' works, like full applications/solutions. Incidentally this is also where GPL is most prevalent. Different licences serve different needs.
                      Richard Stallman did personally enforce the GPL in at least one instance:

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_rea...7s_GPL_license

                      The use of the GPL license for the readline library led to the creation of the editline library, which is a BSD-licensed drop-in replacement.

                      Comment


                      • People who dislike the GPL are usually not users. The GPL is extremely permissive to users. That's the whole point of it. And that's what makes this license so great. It gives me permission to do virtually everything I could possibly want as a user. That's much more meaningful compared to the "free beer" approach of the BSD license, which is very restrictive.

                        People who claim that the BSD license is "permissive" seem to not know what they're talking about. How is it permissive if my ability to freely copy (and/or modify) software that uses BSD licensed code is restricted? That is not permissive at all.

                        And from a programmer's point of view, why on earth would I put countless hours of work in something and then license it under BSD and let everyone sell proprietary products that use my work while I don't get anything (be it payment or code)? If I instead use the GPL, I know that I can get code, or reserve the right to sell a proprietary license instead so I get payment. Compensation in code or money. With the BSD license, you get neither.

                        So no, the LGPL is not better for libraries. It's a compromise and shouldn't be used if you can avoid it.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                          People who dislike the GPL are usually not users. The GPL is extremely permissive to users. That's the whole point of it. And that's what makes this license so great. It gives me permission to do virtually everything I could possibly want as a user. That's much more meaningful compared to the "free beer" approach of the BSD license, which is very restrictive.

                          People who claim that the BSD license is "permissive" seem to not know what they're talking about. How is it permissive if my ability to freely copy (and/or modify) software that uses BSD licensed code is restricted? That is not permissive at all.

                          And from a programmer's point of view, why on earth would I put countless hours of work in something and then license it under BSD and let everyone sell proprietary products that use my work while I don't get anything (be it payment or code)? If I instead use the GPL, I know that I can get code, or reserve the right to sell a proprietary license instead so I get payment. Compensation in code or money. With the BSD license, you get neither.

                          So no, the LGPL is not better for libraries. It's a compromise and shouldn't be used if you can avoid it.
                          For what it is worth, the GPL is usually only good for users if they know how to compile things themselves or someone is willing to be liable for distribution. I recently built GCC for an obscure platform and someone asked me for binaries. I refused to provide them to him because of the GPL.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ryao View Post
                            For what it is worth, the GPL is usually only good for users if they know how to compile things themselves or someone is willing to be liable for distribution.
                            It's also good for users since they can copy the software and give it to others, even if it's commercial. No EULA stuff to worry about.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ryao View Post
                              For what it is worth, the GPL is usually only good for users if they know how to compile things themselves or someone is willing to be liable for distribution. I recently built GCC for an obscure platform and someone asked me for binaries. I refused to provide them to him because of the GPL.
                              So you say that the extra quality that comes from patches pushed upstream, this means nothing to users?

                              Yes indeed RedHat software generates billions of dollars a year in revenues, and puts themselves into the Dow Jones Industrial average, by selling something that means nothing to their end users.

                              Maybe you could try to say something that makes less sense, but I think it would be hard.

                              And by the way, people don't usually BRAG about being butt-wipes. Yes indeed use the work of others for your own ends, and then laugh when asked to be part of the community.
                              Last edited by frantaylor; 02-01-2013, 03:14 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                                It's also good for users since they can copy the software and give it to others, even if it's commercial. No EULA stuff to worry about.
                                They cannot do that without being subject to the GPL requirements themselves.

                                Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
                                So you say that the extra quality that comes from patches pushed upstream, this means nothing to users?

                                Yes indeed RedHat software generates billions of dollars a year in revenues, and puts themselves into the Dow Jones Industrial average, by selling something that means nothing to their end users.

                                Maybe you could try to say something that makes less sense, but I think it would be hard.

                                And by the way, people don't usually BRAG about being butt-wipes. Yes indeed use the work of others for your own ends, and then laugh when asked to be part of the community.
                                I have no clue what you mean by "extra quality". I applied no patches to the sources. I just happen to be one of the few people who understands how to build a toolchain using them. Anyway, I am not opening myself to a lawsuit should I be asked for source code at some point in the future and I can no longer produce it. If GCC had been BSD-licensed, I would have happily given that person binaries.

                                With that said, it would seem that some people will complain no matter what I say. If I say that the GPL prevents developers from wanting to use certain software, they chastise the developers for not embracing GPL software development. If I say that the GPL prevents developers from distributing compiled binaries, they chastize the developers for "not being part of the community". It is ridiculous. Build your own binaries from your own code and leave others out of it. Also, do not publish open source software if you do not want people using your code.
                                Last edited by ryao; 02-01-2013, 05:30 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X