[cfe-dev] [libcxx] Handling multi-platform configuration.

["C. Bergström"]

David Chisnall wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2010, at 14:55, C. Bergström wrote:
>
>   
>> The Apache license is very permissive and can you give an example of a 
>> company/person/project it's not acceptable for?  Is there any 
>> company/person contributing to libcxx now that can't use it?  (It's 
>> certainly not GPL, allows binary only distribution and can't please 
>> everyone all of the time..)
>>     
>
>
> The GPLv2 is incompatible with the Apache license (due to the patent clause in Apache and the no extra conditions clause in GPLv2), meaning that no GPLv2 software can be distributed linking to it.  You could possibly get around this with the system library exemption in GPLv2, clause 3, but only if libstdcxx were distributed with the core OS - if it is an optional package then this exemption would not apply.  The system library exemption is generally assumed not to apply to code that is part of the OS, so Apple or FreeBSD could not ship libstdcxx as the system C++ library implementation and also ship GPL'd C++ utilities that used it.
>
> The Apache license is compatible with GLPv3, so this is not a problem for any software with the 'or later' clause, as long as all of its other dependencies are GPLv3 compatible (which, for example, LGPLv2.1 isn't).
>   
If someone wants a GPL compatible version they already have the GNU 
implementation.  Isn't that a big part of reason people are working on 
this?  (By "this" I mean to move away from GPL2 and especially v3)  
Isn't FreeBSD trying to make v9 or v10 fully GPL free in the base 
system?  I'd say doing this would be a strong move in that direction..