From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 23 16:58:22 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E2F2106567A; Fri, 23 May 2008 16:58:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (bsdimp.com [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D48F48FC1B; Fri, 23 May 2008 16:58:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m4NGunmO005533; Fri, 23 May 2008 10:56:49 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 10:58:11 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20080523.105811.-1253036434.imp@bsdimp.com> To: peter@wemm.org From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: References: <200805220214.m4M2EYTM061847@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080521.211110.-749259186.imp@bsdimp.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, jb@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libdwarf Makefile _libdwarf.h dwarf.h dwarf_abbrev.c dwarf_attr.c dwarf_attrval.c dwarf_cu.c dwarf_dealloc.c dwarf_die.c dwarf_dump.c dwarf_errmsg.c dwarf_errno.c dwarf_finish.c dwarf_form.c dwarf_init.c dwarf_loc.c ... X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 16:58:22 -0000 In message: "Peter Wemm" writes: : On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 8:11 PM, M. Warner Losh wrote: : > In message: <200805220214.m4M2EYTM061847@repoman.freebsd.org> : > John Birrell writes: : > : The API for this library is deliberately different to the GPL'd : > : libdwarf to avoid licensing problems. : > : > What licensing problems does it avoid? APIs can't be copyrighted, and : > therefore can't be GPL'd. : > : > Warner : : Well.. the GNU and linux folk have an interesting spin on this. They : seem to maintain that if an API is specific to a GPL'ed code blob, : then programs that use that specific API are therefore derivatives. Yes, they do... : There was a case a few years ago about the gmp library. They : maintained that a 3rd party consumer of libgmp was a GPL violation if : it wasn't distributed under GPL compatible terms. I seem to recall : that the 'fgmp' (free-gmp) library came out, and a new release of the : 3rd party package was made with the references in the documentation : changed to something like 'uses fgmp or a fgmp-compatible library like : gmp' or some such. It was all a giant circus and waste of effort, : especially since fgmp wasn't really a viable gmp replacement. There have been several court cases that show just the opposite, especially when it comes to an established interface. However, the interface wasn't GPL'd, it was the contamination of the code calling it before there was a !GPL'd implementation that was at issue... : The next point is that the Linux folks (including Linus) seem to : consider that making calls to the linux kernel causes your driver to : be a derivative, unless the API you're calling has been blessed as a : public interface. (To be fair, I can see the point for their specific : circumstances, but their interpretation of copyright seems to be quite : a stretch to me). True, but in this case the interface isn't copyrighted, just its use. : Back to this case. There are non-GPL implementations of libdwarf out : there. I think the API is well and truly fair game at this point. Agreed. that was rather my point: why have a gratuitously different interface. Warner