[cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] New libc++ LLVM Subproject

[David Chisnall]

On 12 May 2010, at 17:37, David Greene wrote:

> On Wednesday 12 May 2010 11:20:20 David Chisnall wrote:
>> On 12 May 2010, at 14:57, David Greene wrote:
>>> I simply don't see or don't understand that libstdc++ has a similar
>>> level of "closedness."
>> 
>> Recent versions of libstdc++ are GPLv3 + runtime exemption.  Te exemption
>> means that the license is completely irrelevant for anyone using or linking
>> against the library, but it is still an issue when you are distributing the
>> code.
> 
> How so?  What's the issue?  What additional restrictions are put on the
> distributor?  If you ship libstdc++ you have to include the source code,
> whether it's GPLv2 or GPLv3.  Is it the anti-Tivoization thing that's a
> problem?  I could see that being an issue for things like the iPhone.
> 
> Just trying to understand the implications...

You can find the FreeBSD Foundation's position here:

http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/press/2007Aug-newsletter.shtml

OpenBSD has a simpler view, that any license that contains multiple pages of legalese restricts the users' freedoms too much. 

NetBSD, as far as I know, has no strict policy towards GPLv3, but is working to eliminate all GPL'd code (v2 or v3) from the base system.  

David