undefined | Better HN

0 pointskstrauser9mo ago0 comments

Now that I think about it, I could easily imagine it being left out of glibc because it doesn't build on Hurd or something.

0 comments

lloeki9mo ago

> I could easily imagine it being left out of glibc because [...]

... its license is BSD-2-Clause ;)

hence "political"

vkazanov9mo ago

Huh? Bsd-style licenses are fully compatible with gpl.

The problem is exactly this: Facebook becomes the upstream of a key part of your system.

And Facebook can just walk away from the project. Like it did just now.

lloeki9mo ago

They are compatible but that's not the point.

If it were included it would instantly become a LGPL hard-fork because of any subsequently added line of code, if not by "virality" of the glibc license, at least because any glibc author code addition would be LGPL, per GNU project policy/ideology.

Also also this would he a hard bar to pass: https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/CopyrightFSForDisclaim

As I recall this is what prevented Apple from contributing C blocks† back to upstream GCC.

† https://github.com/lloeki/cblocks-clobj

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

lloeki9mo ago

> I could easily imagine it being left out of glibc because [...]

... its license is BSD-2-Clause ;)

hence "political"

vkazanov9mo ago

Huh? Bsd-style licenses are fully compatible with gpl.

The problem is exactly this: Facebook becomes the upstream of a key part of your system.

And Facebook can just walk away from the project. Like it did just now.

lloeki9mo ago

They are compatible but that's not the point.

Also also this would he a hard bar to pass: https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/CopyrightFSForDisclaim

As I recall this is what prevented Apple from contributing C blocks† back to upstream GCC.

† https://github.com/lloeki/cblocks-clobj

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse