You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@stdcxx.apache.org by Liviu Nicoara <ni...@hates.ms> on 2012/08/30 15:43:39 UTC
New committers?
I see in the February report (http://stdcxx.apache.org/status/2012-02.txt) that three new committers have been added to the project. Congratulations! Could one of you please update the stdcxx list of committers?
Thanks.
L
Re: New committers?
Posted by Liviu Nicoara <ni...@hates.ms>.
On 08/30/12 11:17, Stefan Teleman wrote:
> [...]
> I don't mean to punt but I think Jim Jagielski maintains a separate
> link with the correct list of committers:
I don't see any difference between the two, either. I'll leave it at that.
L
Re: New committers?
Posted by Wojciech Meyer <wo...@googlemail.com>.
Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> writes:
> On Sep 2, 2012, at 12:02 AM, Martin Sebor <ms...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08/31/2012 02:38 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
>>> My input below.
>>>
>>> On 08/31/12 09:42, Wojciech Meyer wrote:
>>>> The two significant ones (as far as I can understand):
>>>>
>>>> - as I heard from Christopher Bergström that it's hard to push the
>>>> stdcxx to FreeBSD ports repository (I can understand it and that
>>>> sounds pretty bad, if that's the case then the board should consider
>>>> re-licensing as advised; I agree in general it's a hard decision for
>>>> the board, but imagine the project would benefit, IANAL tho)
>>>
>>> Christopher's wishes and goals may be different from others'. I do not
>>> believe he has ulterior motives that would be detrimental to the rest of
>>> us but AFAICT he has not made a compelling argument. Even with one, it
>>> stretches the imagination what could possibly convince Apache to give up
>>> on STDCXX ownership.
>>
>> Just a point of clarity: the ASF doesn't "own" stdcxx. They license
>> it from Rogue Wave which still has the copyright. (Not that anyone
>> there realizes it or would know what to do with it if they did.)
>> IIUC, that's also why they can't relicense it under different terms.
>>
>
> FWIW, the ASF never requires copyright assignment... Just a copyright
> license to "reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display,
> publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and
> such derivative works."
>
> Also, there is nothing in our bylaws or in the various license
> agreements that *exclude* the ASF ever releasing code not under
> the ALv2 (how could it? After all, that would prevent us from
> ever being able to move to ALv3). Again, we could, if we wanted
> to (which we never will, btw) actually make our code under the
> GPLv2...
So what is this discussion all about, I think I got lost in all the
if&buts of the licensing, again IANAL. Is there any FAQ, explaining on
practical examples, like project X uses ALv2 and wants to link GPLv2
code Y, but is a system library, so project X can exploit clause #12345
of the GPLv2 license and do it, but needs to be licensed under GPLv2 or
GPLv3, etc. Still I am reading that ALv2 does not require the fork to be
licensed under the same license (!), so that made me completely lost:
"The Apache License is permissive, so it does not require modified
versions of the software to be distributed using the same license
(unlike copyleft licenses - see comparison). In every licensed file, any
original copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices in
redistributed code must be preserved (excluding notices that do not
pertain to any part of the derivative works); and, in every licensed
file changed, a notification must be added stating that changes have
been made to that file."
(wikipedia; I can't read the original maze.)
Sorry, but now I am out of this particular discussion.
Thanks,
--
Wojciech Meyer
http://danmey.org
Re: New committers?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
If Christopher is interested in moving, then, to be frank, then
I expect him to do whatever work is required to move it, including
any legal legwork. This is esp true since his whole reason
for moving it is, as I mentioned, completely bogus.
My concern is to try to make it a success here.
On Sep 6, 2012, at 12:26 PM, Martin Sebor <ms...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 09/06/2012 07:22 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> As an ASF project? It's not going to happen.
>
> Not necessarily as an ASF project. Christopher is interested
> in moving the project somewhere else. See for example:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/stdcxx-dev/201106.mbox/%3C4DFAE25E.9040703@pathscale.com%3E
>
> I would also like to know what the options are.
>
> Martin
>
>>
>> On Sep 4, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Martin Sebor<ms...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/02/2012 08:42 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 2, 2012, at 12:02 AM, Martin Sebor<ms...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 08/31/2012 02:38 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
>>>>>> My input below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 08/31/12 09:42, Wojciech Meyer wrote:
>>>>>>> The two significant ones (as far as I can understand):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - as I heard from Christopher Bergström that it's hard to push the
>>>>>>> stdcxx to FreeBSD ports repository (I can understand it and that
>>>>>>> sounds pretty bad, if that's the case then the board should consider
>>>>>>> re-licensing as advised; I agree in general it's a hard decision for
>>>>>>> the board, but imagine the project would benefit, IANAL tho)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Christopher's wishes and goals may be different from others'. I do not
>>>>>> believe he has ulterior motives that would be detrimental to the rest of
>>>>>> us but AFAICT he has not made a compelling argument. Even with one, it
>>>>>> stretches the imagination what could possibly convince Apache to give up
>>>>>> on STDCXX ownership.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just a point of clarity: the ASF doesn't "own" stdcxx. They license
>>>>> it from Rogue Wave which still has the copyright. (Not that anyone
>>>>> there realizes it or would know what to do with it if they did.)
>>>>> IIUC, that's also why they can't relicense it under different terms.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, the ASF never requires copyright assignment... Just a copyright
>>>> license to "reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display,
>>>> publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and
>>>> such derivative works."
>>>>
>>>> Also, there is nothing in our bylaws or in the various license
>>>> agreements that *exclude* the ASF ever releasing code not under
>>>> the ALv2 (how could it? After all, that would prevent us from
>>>> ever being able to move to ALv3). Again, we could, if we wanted
>>>> to (which we never will, btw) actually make our code under the
>>>> GPLv2...
>>>
>>> So what would it take to change the license to BSD as Christopher
>>> asks (IIUC)?
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>
>
Re: New committers?
Posted by Martin Sebor <ms...@gmail.com>.
On 09/06/2012 07:22 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> As an ASF project? It's not going to happen.
Not necessarily as an ASF project. Christopher is interested
in moving the project somewhere else. See for example:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/stdcxx-dev/201106.mbox/%3C4DFAE25E.9040703@pathscale.com%3E
I would also like to know what the options are.
Martin
>
> On Sep 4, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Martin Sebor<ms...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 09/02/2012 08:42 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 2, 2012, at 12:02 AM, Martin Sebor<ms...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 08/31/2012 02:38 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
>>>>> My input below.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08/31/12 09:42, Wojciech Meyer wrote:
>>>>>> The two significant ones (as far as I can understand):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - as I heard from Christopher Bergström that it's hard to push the
>>>>>> stdcxx to FreeBSD ports repository (I can understand it and that
>>>>>> sounds pretty bad, if that's the case then the board should consider
>>>>>> re-licensing as advised; I agree in general it's a hard decision for
>>>>>> the board, but imagine the project would benefit, IANAL tho)
>>>>>
>>>>> Christopher's wishes and goals may be different from others'. I do not
>>>>> believe he has ulterior motives that would be detrimental to the rest of
>>>>> us but AFAICT he has not made a compelling argument. Even with one, it
>>>>> stretches the imagination what could possibly convince Apache to give up
>>>>> on STDCXX ownership.
>>>>
>>>> Just a point of clarity: the ASF doesn't "own" stdcxx. They license
>>>> it from Rogue Wave which still has the copyright. (Not that anyone
>>>> there realizes it or would know what to do with it if they did.)
>>>> IIUC, that's also why they can't relicense it under different terms.
>>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW, the ASF never requires copyright assignment... Just a copyright
>>> license to "reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display,
>>> publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and
>>> such derivative works."
>>>
>>> Also, there is nothing in our bylaws or in the various license
>>> agreements that *exclude* the ASF ever releasing code not under
>>> the ALv2 (how could it? After all, that would prevent us from
>>> ever being able to move to ALv3). Again, we could, if we wanted
>>> to (which we never will, btw) actually make our code under the
>>> GPLv2...
>>
>> So what would it take to change the license to BSD as Christopher
>> asks (IIUC)?
>>
>> Martin
>>
>
Re: New committers?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
As an ASF project? It's not going to happen.
On Sep 4, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Martin Sebor <ms...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 09/02/2012 08:42 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 2, 2012, at 12:02 AM, Martin Sebor<ms...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/31/2012 02:38 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
>>>> My input below.
>>>>
>>>> On 08/31/12 09:42, Wojciech Meyer wrote:
>>>>> The two significant ones (as far as I can understand):
>>>>>
>>>>> - as I heard from Christopher Bergström that it's hard to push the
>>>>> stdcxx to FreeBSD ports repository (I can understand it and that
>>>>> sounds pretty bad, if that's the case then the board should consider
>>>>> re-licensing as advised; I agree in general it's a hard decision for
>>>>> the board, but imagine the project would benefit, IANAL tho)
>>>>
>>>> Christopher's wishes and goals may be different from others'. I do not
>>>> believe he has ulterior motives that would be detrimental to the rest of
>>>> us but AFAICT he has not made a compelling argument. Even with one, it
>>>> stretches the imagination what could possibly convince Apache to give up
>>>> on STDCXX ownership.
>>>
>>> Just a point of clarity: the ASF doesn't "own" stdcxx. They license
>>> it from Rogue Wave which still has the copyright. (Not that anyone
>>> there realizes it or would know what to do with it if they did.)
>>> IIUC, that's also why they can't relicense it under different terms.
>>>
>>
>> FWIW, the ASF never requires copyright assignment... Just a copyright
>> license to "reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display,
>> publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and
>> such derivative works."
>>
>> Also, there is nothing in our bylaws or in the various license
>> agreements that *exclude* the ASF ever releasing code not under
>> the ALv2 (how could it? After all, that would prevent us from
>> ever being able to move to ALv3). Again, we could, if we wanted
>> to (which we never will, btw) actually make our code under the
>> GPLv2...
>
> So what would it take to change the license to BSD as Christopher
> asks (IIUC)?
>
> Martin
>
Re: New committers?
Posted by Martin Sebor <ms...@gmail.com>.
On 09/02/2012 08:42 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Sep 2, 2012, at 12:02 AM, Martin Sebor<ms...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08/31/2012 02:38 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
>>> My input below.
>>>
>>> On 08/31/12 09:42, Wojciech Meyer wrote:
>>>> The two significant ones (as far as I can understand):
>>>>
>>>> - as I heard from Christopher Bergström that it's hard to push the
>>>> stdcxx to FreeBSD ports repository (I can understand it and that
>>>> sounds pretty bad, if that's the case then the board should consider
>>>> re-licensing as advised; I agree in general it's a hard decision for
>>>> the board, but imagine the project would benefit, IANAL tho)
>>>
>>> Christopher's wishes and goals may be different from others'. I do not
>>> believe he has ulterior motives that would be detrimental to the rest of
>>> us but AFAICT he has not made a compelling argument. Even with one, it
>>> stretches the imagination what could possibly convince Apache to give up
>>> on STDCXX ownership.
>>
>> Just a point of clarity: the ASF doesn't "own" stdcxx. They license
>> it from Rogue Wave which still has the copyright. (Not that anyone
>> there realizes it or would know what to do with it if they did.)
>> IIUC, that's also why they can't relicense it under different terms.
>>
>
> FWIW, the ASF never requires copyright assignment... Just a copyright
> license to "reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display,
> publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and
> such derivative works."
>
> Also, there is nothing in our bylaws or in the various license
> agreements that *exclude* the ASF ever releasing code not under
> the ALv2 (how could it? After all, that would prevent us from
> ever being able to move to ALv3). Again, we could, if we wanted
> to (which we never will, btw) actually make our code under the
> GPLv2...
So what would it take to change the license to BSD as Christopher
asks (IIUC)?
Martin
Re: New committers?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Sep 2, 2012, at 12:02 AM, Martin Sebor <ms...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/31/2012 02:38 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
>> My input below.
>>
>> On 08/31/12 09:42, Wojciech Meyer wrote:
>>> The two significant ones (as far as I can understand):
>>>
>>> - as I heard from Christopher Bergström that it's hard to push the
>>> stdcxx to FreeBSD ports repository (I can understand it and that
>>> sounds pretty bad, if that's the case then the board should consider
>>> re-licensing as advised; I agree in general it's a hard decision for
>>> the board, but imagine the project would benefit, IANAL tho)
>>
>> Christopher's wishes and goals may be different from others'. I do not
>> believe he has ulterior motives that would be detrimental to the rest of
>> us but AFAICT he has not made a compelling argument. Even with one, it
>> stretches the imagination what could possibly convince Apache to give up
>> on STDCXX ownership.
>
> Just a point of clarity: the ASF doesn't "own" stdcxx. They license
> it from Rogue Wave which still has the copyright. (Not that anyone
> there realizes it or would know what to do with it if they did.)
> IIUC, that's also why they can't relicense it under different terms.
>
FWIW, the ASF never requires copyright assignment... Just a copyright
license to "reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display,
publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and
such derivative works."
Also, there is nothing in our bylaws or in the various license
agreements that *exclude* the ASF ever releasing code not under
the ALv2 (how could it? After all, that would prevent us from
ever being able to move to ALv3). Again, we could, if we wanted
to (which we never will, btw) actually make our code under the
GPLv2...
Re: stdcxx Wikipedia update
Posted by Martin Sebor <ms...@gmail.com>.
On 09/02/2012 10:16 AM, Wojciech Meyer wrote:
> According to the wikipedia we are dead?
The status was added by Wikipedia user 188.50.90.23. Based
on past contributions, it looks like someone or something
with a brief two-day interest in the status of Apache
projects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/188.50.90.23
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_C%2B%2B_Standard_Library
>
> are we? :-)
>
> If somebody support this, I will update the relevant field.
I'm not sure what the status is meant to reflect. Clearly,
even though the project has been mostly inactive for years,
it's still an ASF project with a community of developers
and users around it.
Changing it to Active or whatever makes the most sense seems
more appropriate at this stage than what's there now.
Martin
>
> --
> Wojciech Meyer
> http://danmey.org
Re: stdcxx Wikipedia update
Posted by Liviu Nicoara <ni...@hates.ms>.
On Sep 2, 2012, at 12:16 PM, Wojciech Meyer wrote:
> According to the wikipedia we are dead?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_C%2B%2B_Standard_Library
>
> are we? :-)
>
It's hard to argue against, at this point. But I hope we'll soon be able to justify changing it.
L
stdcxx Wikipedia update
Posted by Wojciech Meyer <wo...@googlemail.com>.
According to the wikipedia we are dead?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_C%2B%2B_Standard_Library
are we? :-)
If somebody support this, I will update the relevant field.
--
Wojciech Meyer
http://danmey.org
Re: New committers?
Posted by Martin Sebor <ms...@gmail.com>.
On 08/31/2012 02:38 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
> My input below.
>
> On 08/31/12 09:42, Wojciech Meyer wrote:
>> The two significant ones (as far as I can understand):
>>
>> - as I heard from Christopher Bergström that it's hard to push the
>> stdcxx to FreeBSD ports repository (I can understand it and that
>> sounds pretty bad, if that's the case then the board should consider
>> re-licensing as advised; I agree in general it's a hard decision for
>> the board, but imagine the project would benefit, IANAL tho)
>
> Christopher's wishes and goals may be different from others'. I do not
> believe he has ulterior motives that would be detrimental to the rest of
> us but AFAICT he has not made a compelling argument. Even with one, it
> stretches the imagination what could possibly convince Apache to give up
> on STDCXX ownership.
Just a point of clarity: the ASF doesn't "own" stdcxx. They license
it from Rogue Wave which still has the copyright. (Not that anyone
there realizes it or would know what to do with it if they did.)
IIUC, that's also why they can't relicense it under different terms.
Martin
Re: New committers?
Posted by Liviu Nicoara <ni...@hates.ms>.
My input below.
On 08/31/12 09:42, Wojciech Meyer wrote:
> The two significant ones (as far as I can understand):
>
> - as I heard from Christopher Bergström that it's hard to push the
> stdcxx to FreeBSD ports repository (I can understand it and that
> sounds pretty bad, if that's the case then the board should consider
> re-licensing as advised; I agree in general it's a hard decision for
> the board, but imagine the project would benefit, IANAL tho)
Christopher's wishes and goals may be different from others'. I do not believe he has ulterior motives that would be detrimental to the rest of us but AFAICT he has not made a compelling argument. Even with one, it stretches the imagination what could possibly convince Apache to give up on STDCXX ownership.
> - I'm also reading through that methodology we use might not fit the
> distributed model which could basically improve the pace of
> development stream (and again github is nice at these things; but
> there are other considerations)
The process put in place by Apache closely mirrors the rigors of the Rogue Wave environment where the project originates. The development proceeds at the best speed possible while at the same time proving the consistency and correctness of the code base through passing unit tests. The process is tightly controlled by rules which are observed by everyone (such as creating test cases before fixing bugs, thoroughly documenting changes, following coding and code structuring conventions, etc.). The process has an ultimate authority in the person of the tech lead, Martin.
The end result of the _pedantic_ application of these rules is the product you and I, all of us, enjoy. As mentioned before it is of an excellent quality, not often seen in the software world. It also is a very sophisticated product both with an intricate code structure, and extreme use of the language which pushes the compilers to their limits. Any change, however small, must be carefully considered and weighed, and careless changes will almost always break it in subtle ways. As a rule of thumb, if there is something that looks wrong in the source code, chances are you're not getting it right.
In case my point did not get across by now, I am strongly for the continuation of a tightly controlled development process.
Thanks.
Liviu
Re: New committers?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Aug 31, 2012, at 5:24 PM, Wojciech Meyer <wo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> writes:
>
>> On Aug 31, 2012, at 2:27 PM, "C. Bergström" <cb...@pathscale.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/ 1/12 01:25 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>> Are you suggesting that FreeBSD does not allow the inclusion of ANY
>>>> ALv2 library under its ports directory?
>>> I'll give you the benefit of the a doubt one more time...
>>>
>>> stdcxx ends up linking against *EVERY* C++ application if it's used
>>> in the default compiler setup. (Which is what I was trying to
>>> achieve) That includes *******GPLv2******** software in ports. Get
>>> it?
>>>
>>
>> I notice you did not answer my question... It's a simply question
>> and requires a simple yes or no. Are you suggesting that FreeBSD does
>> not allow the inclusion of ANY ALv2 library under its ports directory?
>>
>> Thx.
>
> Hi again,
>
> the point is that the stdcxx is rudimentary for the C++ applications,
> and if they are GPL then can't use stdcxx as a standard C++
> library.
Again, this is simply untrue. GPLv2 and GPLv3 have exceptions for
system libraries...
Considering that the entire argument is based on the above false
assumption, everything else is moot.
Re: New committers?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Aug 31, 2012, at 5:24 PM, Wojciech Meyer <wo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Libstc++
> is LGPL therefore can link with GPL project, and can link with ALv2
> project, but stdcxx is ALv2 and cannot link with GPL project.
>
> That's basically what LGPL was designed for, to solve this problem.
>
Nope... LGPL was designed as a counterpoint to the GPL,
NOT to other-licensed libs.
Re: New committers?
Posted by Wojciech Meyer <wo...@googlemail.com>.
Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> writes:
> On Aug 31, 2012, at 2:27 PM, "C. Bergström" <cb...@pathscale.com> wrote:
>
>> On 09/ 1/12 01:25 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> Are you suggesting that FreeBSD does not allow the inclusion of ANY
>>> ALv2 library under its ports directory?
>> I'll give you the benefit of the a doubt one more time...
>>
>> stdcxx ends up linking against *EVERY* C++ application if it's used
>> in the default compiler setup. (Which is what I was trying to
>> achieve) That includes *******GPLv2******** software in ports. Get
>> it?
>>
>
> I notice you did not answer my question... It's a simply question
> and requires a simple yes or no. Are you suggesting that FreeBSD does
> not allow the inclusion of ANY ALv2 library under its ports directory?
>
> Thx.
Hi again,
the point is that the stdcxx is rudimentary for the C++ applications,
and if they are GPL then can't use stdcxx as a standard C++
library. Therefore it means that in this setting stdcxx becomes
useless. The license in this case hinders the purpose of the library,
which is bad in many ways, OTOH if AF used extensively C++ in their
projects it would make sense to stick to have own non GPL library. From
my point of view, there would be absolutely no problem if ALv2 was
relaxed version of LGPL and more over compatible with it, but in this
case it's less permissive than LGPL. which for such library is not
appropriate since there are many GPL projects that do use C++. Libstc++
is LGPL therefore can link with GPL project, and can link with ALv2
project, but stdcxx is ALv2 and cannot link with GPL project.
That's basically what LGPL was designed for, to solve this problem.
It would be like libc was GPL, who would ever consider using that apart
from GPLed projects? For third party standard library is even worse. One
could blame the combination of unlucky choice of the ALv2 for this sort
of project, or FSF being incompatible with that particular license being
a root problem of stdcxx declining. So I understand that people that
want to use stdcxx are being frustrated - because basically they can't
freely use it.
So I disagree with FSF being not able to accept Apache license, but
accepting BSD license at the same point. I also see a point of relaxing
license, to make the projects more successful, either something or
completely nothing I would say. There is nothing better for the project
to put it under BSD license, if the community fails to deliver what is
needed. What Christopher is proposing is not to close the codebase or
anything like this, he is trying to save the damn useful piece of code.
and BTW: I was unaware about the licensing glitch between GPL vs ALv2
until know, and it appeared to me a broken concept from the Open Source
point view (but it makes sense from the Free Software point of view) now
I know why is this hot discussion etc.
The worst scenario would be to put the project into attic, that would
kill that codebase once for good. Please, don't. Now let's think clearly
what can we do to keep it alive. I am willing to contribute still, but I
see limited sense of all this operations, if we can't link it to C++ GPL
programs.
I'll leave this decision to Jim Jagielski, as he is word is the last
here, but you know my view on that. (even if it matters little in the
end)
--
Wojciech Meyer
http://danmey.org
PS: "Linking exception" or "Dual licensing" would that solve the problem?
Re: New committers?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Aug 31, 2012, at 2:27 PM, "C. Bergström" <cb...@pathscale.com> wrote:
> On 09/ 1/12 01:25 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Are you suggesting that FreeBSD does not allow the inclusion of ANY
>> ALv2 library under its ports directory?
> I'll give you the benefit of the a doubt one more time...
>
> stdcxx ends up linking against *EVERY* C++ application if it's used in the default compiler setup. (Which is what I was trying to achieve) That includes *******GPLv2******** software in ports. Get it?
>
I notice you did not answer my question... It's a simply question
and requires a simple yes or no. Are you suggesting that FreeBSD does
not allow the inclusion of ANY ALv2 library under its ports directory?
Thx.
Re: New committers?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Aug 31, 2012, at 2:38 PM, "C. Bergström" <cb...@pathscale.com> wrote:
> On 09/ 1/12 01:35 AM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:27 PM, "C. Bergström"
>> <cb...@pathscale.com> wrote:
>>
>>> stdcxx ends up linking against *EVERY* C++ application if it's used in the
>>> default compiler setup. (Which is what I was trying to achieve) That
>>> includes *******GPLv2******** software in ports. Get it?
>> How exactly is APLv2 different from 2-clause BSD or 3-clause BSD in
>> this respect? The BSD licenses are just as incompatible with GPLv2 as
>> APLv2 is.
> Our views may be the same, but others are not
>
> from the apache website
>
> "Despite our best efforts, the FSF has never considered the Apache License to be compatible with GPL version 2"
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
>
FWIW, however, the ASF does not agree with that. That is pretty common
knowledge. So your view agrees with that of the ASF.
Re: New committers?
Posted by "C. Bergström" <cb...@pathscale.com>.
On 09/ 1/12 01:35 AM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:27 PM, "C. Bergström"
> <cb...@pathscale.com> wrote:
>
>> stdcxx ends up linking against *EVERY* C++ application if it's used in the
>> default compiler setup. (Which is what I was trying to achieve) That
>> includes *******GPLv2******** software in ports. Get it?
> How exactly is APLv2 different from 2-clause BSD or 3-clause BSD in
> this respect? The BSD licenses are just as incompatible with GPLv2 as
> APLv2 is.
Our views may be the same, but others are not
from the apache website
"Despite our best efforts, the FSF has never considered the Apache
License to be compatible with GPL version 2"
http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
Re: New committers?
Posted by Stefan Teleman <st...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:27 PM, "C. Bergström"
<cb...@pathscale.com> wrote:
> stdcxx ends up linking against *EVERY* C++ application if it's used in the
> default compiler setup. (Which is what I was trying to achieve) That
> includes *******GPLv2******** software in ports. Get it?
How exactly is APLv2 different from 2-clause BSD or 3-clause BSD in
this respect? The BSD licenses are just as incompatible with GPLv2 as
APLv2 is.
--Stefan
--
Stefan Teleman
KDE e.V.
stefan.teleman@gmail.com
Re: New committers?
Posted by "C. Bergström" <cb...@pathscale.com>.
On 09/ 1/12 01:25 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Are you suggesting that FreeBSD does not allow the inclusion of ANY
> ALv2 library under its ports directory?
I'll give you the benefit of the a doubt one more time...
stdcxx ends up linking against *EVERY* C++ application if it's used in
the default compiler setup. (Which is what I was trying to achieve)
That includes *******GPLv2******** software in ports. Get it?
Re: New committers?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Are you suggesting that FreeBSD does not allow the inclusion of ANY
ALv2 library under its ports directory?
On Aug 31, 2012, at 2:19 PM, "C. Bergström" <cb...@pathscale.com> wrote:
> Do they come bundled with the compiler and link against every c++ application by default? I suspect that their risk assessment may be higher with something that's equivalent to libc on the system. (btw - anecdotal evidence and flippant comments don't help resolve this. Did you even read my previous email explaining this?)
>
Re: New committers?
Posted by "C. Bergström" <cb...@pathscale.com>.
On 09/ 1/12 01:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Wojciech Meyer<wo...@arm.com> wrote:
>
>> Jim Jagielski<ji...@jaguNET.com> writes:
>>
>>> So how are/were they committers??
>> Hi!
>>
>> Chime in - I think we need to clarify what kind of problems we have with
>> stdcxx being hosted as an Apache project.
>>
>> The two significant ones (as far as I can understand):
>>
>> - as I heard from Christopher Bergström that it's hard to push the
>> stdcxx to FreeBSD ports repository (I can understand it and that
>> sounds pretty bad, if that's the case then the board should consider
>> re-licensing as advised; I agree in general it's a hard decision for
>> the board, but imagine the project would benefit, IANAL tho)
> Not exactly sure why, or how, since there are other ASF projects
> in the FreeBSD ports directory... LOTS of others.
Do they come bundled with the compiler and link against every c++
application by default? I suspect that their risk assessment may be
higher with something that's equivalent to libc on the system. (btw -
anecdotal evidence and flippant comments don't help resolve this. Did
you even read my previous email explaining this?)
Re: New committers?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Aug 31, 2012, at 9:42 AM, Wojciech Meyer <wo...@arm.com> wrote:
> Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> writes:
>
>> So how are/were they committers??
>
> Hi!
>
> Chime in - I think we need to clarify what kind of problems we have with
> stdcxx being hosted as an Apache project.
>
> The two significant ones (as far as I can understand):
>
> - as I heard from Christopher Bergström that it's hard to push the
> stdcxx to FreeBSD ports repository (I can understand it and that
> sounds pretty bad, if that's the case then the board should consider
> re-licensing as advised; I agree in general it's a hard decision for
> the board, but imagine the project would benefit, IANAL tho)
Not exactly sure why, or how, since there are other ASF projects
in the FreeBSD ports directory... LOTS of others.
>
> So what we need to submit from everybody (not trying to be bossy this
> time :-))
> 1) list of *real* impediments, concrete examples: so we can workout the
> plan. Bullet points would be great, similar to facts table Christopher
> has submitted.
> 2) list of our commitments vs. stdcxx: who is going to do what in the
> meantime.
>
> #1: Nothing comes to my mind right now, apart from not putting into
> attic for time being please, but I understand other people might have a
> lot of to say.
>
> #2: I plan to commit my patches to armcc port of stdcxx in the short
> time, and perhaps help with the Clang port as somebody already have
> mentioned, this certainly needs to be discussed!
++1 !! Thx!!!
Re: New committers?
Posted by Wojciech Meyer <wo...@arm.com>.
Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> writes:
> So how are/were they committers??
Hi!
Chime in - I think we need to clarify what kind of problems we have with
stdcxx being hosted as an Apache project.
The two significant ones (as far as I can understand):
- as I heard from Christopher Bergström that it's hard to push the
stdcxx to FreeBSD ports repository (I can understand it and that
sounds pretty bad, if that's the case then the board should consider
re-licensing as advised; I agree in general it's a hard decision for
the board, but imagine the project would benefit, IANAL tho)
- I'm also reading through that methodology we use might not fit the
distributed model which could basically improve the pace of
development stream (and again github is nice at these things; but
there are other considerations)
Could somebody just prepare a list of impediments, and possible
solutions, we can all workout a single solution that everybody will at
least accept - I really don't want to lose faith in stdcxx - especially
in such conditions.
I still want to contribute, as Christopher said is a critical part of
the C++ stack. We got a commit access, and the list seems to be more
lively these days, so why not really try to do something useful with
this!
AFAIK there are 3 sides of this discussion:
* Jim who wants to put the project into attic, but what he really cares is
how to resurrect stdcxx, as it's an exceptional project for Apache.
* Christopher who also thinks the project is exceptional, and should
change the way we handle certain things.
* and the rest who actually want to commit something and actually start
developing, right?
I can understand that putting stdcxx into attic might have a negative
impact on the development, but doesn't inhibit forking. I'd vote not for
putting attic still, as perhaps in case of stdcxx and current state of
tools it might be that the project will not survive it, surely that's
not Christopher, board and the rest of the developers want.
So we agree on one thing, don't want to lose stdcxx and have freedom of
the C++ standard library with frequent updates, and speed of development
that is concurrent to gcc's libc++ and Clang libraries with a liberal
license.
So what we need to submit from everybody (not trying to be bossy this
time :-))
1) list of *real* impediments, concrete examples: so we can workout the
plan. Bullet points would be great, similar to facts table Christopher
has submitted.
2) list of our commitments vs. stdcxx: who is going to do what in the
meantime.
#1: Nothing comes to my mind right now, apart from not putting into
attic for time being please, but I understand other people might have a
lot of to say.
#2: I plan to commit my patches to armcc port of stdcxx in the short
time, and perhaps help with the Clang port as somebody already have
mentioned, this certainly needs to be discussed!
Cheers,
Wojciech
Re: New committers?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
As I see it, these 2/3 people were added before I was assigned
as chair. I also don't see that, at least according to ldap,
that they have commit privs. Nor, as stated, were they
added to committee-info.txt. And in March 2012's report
(http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2012/board_minutes_2012_03_21.txt) we
see:
"""
Last month, stdcxx added three committers/PMC members. One sent in his
CLA and and an account for him was created. The other two are in the
process of getting their CLAs signed by their employers.
"""
So how are/were they committers??
On Aug 30, 2012, at 12:04 PM, Martin Sebor <ms...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/30/2012 09:17 AM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Liviu Nicoara<ni...@hates.ms> wrote:
>>> I see in the February report (http://stdcxx.apache.org/status/2012-02.txt)
>>> that three new committers have been added to the project. Congratulations!
>>> Could one of you please update the stdcxx list of committers?
>>
>> I don't mean to punt but I think Jim Jagielski maintains a separate
>> link with the correct list of committers:
>>
>> <QUOTE>
>>
>> An up-to-date list of all Apache committers (or committers-to-be) is
>> being maintained by Jim Jagielski on this page.
>>
>> </QUOTE>
>>
>> which links to:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html
>>
>> But out of that comprehensive list of all the ASF Committers, I don't
>> know who the other two stdcxx Committers are.
>
> Christopher Bergström, and Wojciech Meyer.
>
>>
>> Which also begs the question: why was this stdcxx Committers list
>> update done this way, by linking to a separate page, when the change
>> could have very well be made directly to the stdcxx's Committers list.
>
> I would usually update the Committers table when I chaired
> the project. But any committer can update the STDCXX site.
> It doesn't have to be the chair. It would be useful to have
> instructions for how to do it somewhere. Let me see if I can
> find some time to write them up and post them.
>
> FWIW, the link to Jim's page is there simply as a reference
> to the (at one point and maybe still) authoritative list of
> all committers and committers-to-be. I thought it would be
> handy when we forgot to update the table.
>
> Martin
>
>>
>> --Stefan
>>
>
Re: New committers?
Posted by Martin Sebor <ms...@gmail.com>.
On 08/30/2012 09:17 AM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Liviu Nicoara<ni...@hates.ms> wrote:
>> I see in the February report (http://stdcxx.apache.org/status/2012-02.txt)
>> that three new committers have been added to the project. Congratulations!
>> Could one of you please update the stdcxx list of committers?
>
> I don't mean to punt but I think Jim Jagielski maintains a separate
> link with the correct list of committers:
>
> <QUOTE>
>
> An up-to-date list of all Apache committers (or committers-to-be) is
> being maintained by Jim Jagielski on this page.
>
> </QUOTE>
>
> which links to:
>
> http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html
>
> But out of that comprehensive list of all the ASF Committers, I don't
> know who the other two stdcxx Committers are.
Christopher Bergström, and Wojciech Meyer.
>
> Which also begs the question: why was this stdcxx Committers list
> update done this way, by linking to a separate page, when the change
> could have very well be made directly to the stdcxx's Committers list.
I would usually update the Committers table when I chaired
the project. But any committer can update the STDCXX site.
It doesn't have to be the chair. It would be useful to have
instructions for how to do it somewhere. Let me see if I can
find some time to write them up and post them.
FWIW, the link to Jim's page is there simply as a reference
to the (at one point and maybe still) authoritative list of
all committers and committers-to-be. I thought it would be
handy when we forgot to update the table.
Martin
>
> --Stefan
>
Re: New committers?
Posted by Stefan Teleman <st...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Liviu Nicoara <ni...@hates.ms> wrote:
> I see in the February report (http://stdcxx.apache.org/status/2012-02.txt)
> that three new committers have been added to the project. Congratulations!
> Could one of you please update the stdcxx list of committers?
I don't mean to punt but I think Jim Jagielski maintains a separate
link with the correct list of committers:
<QUOTE>
An up-to-date list of all Apache committers (or committers-to-be) is
being maintained by Jim Jagielski on this page.
</QUOTE>
which links to:
http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html
But out of that comprehensive list of all the ASF Committers, I don't
know who the other two stdcxx Committers are.
Which also begs the question: why was this stdcxx Committers list
update done this way, by linking to a separate page, when the change
could have very well be made directly to the stdcxx's Committers list.
--Stefan
--
Stefan Teleman
KDE e.V.
stefan.teleman@gmail.com