Hi Florian, On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 01:20:15PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > It's been suggested to me that it might help Debian move forward on this > > issue if I provide some background on why Canonical has chosen to not regard > > this issue as critical for Ubuntu. > My personal impression is that Debian does not view this issue as > critical, either. Switching the GCC default hasn't happened for other > reasons. Well, in conversations with Matthias, I understand that this is currently the main blocker. > > The FSF has not contacted Canonical requesting a resolution, > The FSF generally licenses their code under GPL, version x "or later", > so they are not affected by this at all. My understanding is that there is a violation of the gcc 4.4 license because the exception is insufficient. So whether or not the FSF holds the copyright on the application /being/ compiled, they're in a position to comment on whether this is the intended result - and in a position to resolve the conflict by amending the exception. > Developers who license their code under the GPL, version 2, and no > later version, have a reason to complain. The OpenSSL and KDE issues > are a precedents showing that we cannot rely on the system library > exception for linking to the run-time library here. So the project's > position will be slightly inconsistent, but I think we can live with > that. In the OpenSSL case, we had definite information that the license conflict would not be resolved. If it came to light that this recent license conflict was deliberate on the part of the FSF, I would certainly support handling it in a consistent manner. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
