Russ Allbery dixit:
>At the time, though, the assumption was that Built-Using would be a fairly
>rare thing that would only be used for those few score packages that were
>Build-Depending on *-source packages.
And statically linked executables, since that made it into the
Policy wording; or possi
Thorsten Glaser writes:
> (Were legal reasons the driving force behind adding Built-Using in the
> first place?)
Yes, although not this particular issue. There are a set of packages that
we build that use other packages as source during the build process. The
most common are cross-compilation
Russ Allbery dixit:
>debian-legal isn't really the correct venue. It's just a discussion list
Ah, okay.
>going to start with leader and see if Lucas has an opinion about where to
>start with making decisions here. One option available to leader is to
>ask for an opinion from external legal cou
Thorsten Glaser writes:
> Ah. Got it.
> GPLv2 §3 says:
> | control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
> | special exception, the source code distributed need not include
> | anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
> | form) with the major co
tl;dr: last paragraph.
Dixi quod…
>Russ Allbery dixit:
>
>>If this license analysis is correct, then we have to do this for every
>>binary on the system that's covered by the GPL v2, since I believe some
[…]
>The csu are included, and TTBOMK some of it comes from GCC
>and some from the libc in q
Russ Allbery dixit:
>If this license analysis is correct, then we have to do this for every
>binary on the system that's covered by the GPL v2, since I believe some
Hmm.
>stub code from libgcc is *always* included statically in every binary,
>even if the binary is built dynamically. (Or at leas
Thorsten Glaser writes:
> Russ Allbery dixit:
>> If not, I'm confused. I don't see any reason why dietlibc's license
>> would change something about libgcc's license.
> dietlibc is GPL, so a derivate is also GPL.
> The mksh-static and lksh binaries, when linked against dietlibc, consist
> of d
Russ Allbery dixit:
>> The dietlibc licence does require for libgcc to be added there
>> (GPL without exception clause).
>
>I think you mean that dietlibc requires that *dietlibc* be added, right?
No, I meant it like that.
>If not, I'm confused. I don't see any reason why dietlibc's license wou
Thorsten Glaser writes:
> Russ Allbery dixit:
>> In the meantime, please don't add Built-Using for libgcc. The libgcc
>> license does not require it, due to the runtime exception, and
>> essentially
> The dietlibc licence does require for libgcc to be added there
> (GPL without exception clause
Russ Allbery dixit:
>In the meantime, please don't add Built-Using for libgcc. The libgcc
>license does not require it, due to the runtime exception, and essentially
The dietlibc licence does require for libgcc to be added there
(GPL without exception clause).
bye,
//mirabilos
--
> Hi, does an
Thorsten Glaser writes:
> In this specific case, there are one to two statically linked programs
> there. In some cases, they link statically against a GPL licenced
> library. So my current interpretation of the text from Policy above says
> that Built-Using is indeed required there.
Per previou
Package: mksh
Version: 46-1
Severity: serious
Dear Maintainer,
The handling of built-using is wrong. It is not meant to encode the
compiler used, nor binutils or kernel headers should be recorded there
It is specifically for building against -source packages and for hacks
like ia32libs where bin
12 matches
Mail list logo
