https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63651
Eric Gallager <egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager <egall at gwmail dot gwu.edu> ---
(In reply to howarth from comment #7)
>
> If I remember correctly, the blocks issue is problematic because of the
> blocks runtime's license, so that whole package would have to be reverse
> engineered to be under GPLv3, no?
I just googled the text of the license for the blocks runtime (i.e.
libclosure), and it looks like it's the MIT license... can't MIT-licensed
packages be used in GPLed projects? After accounting for the ambiguity of the
name, the GNU license list seems to say they're compatible:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#X11License
or
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat
The libclosure license can be found at the top of:
http://opensource.apple.com/source/libclosure/libclosure-65/BlockImplementation.txt
or
http://opensource.apple.com/source/libclosure/libclosure-65/BlockSpec.rtf
(if anyone wants to verify)
