Re: License analysis for static linking

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Florian Weimer wrote:
> I could be persuaded by an argument along these lines: The Rust and Go
> cases are different because for its Rust and Go dependencies, there
> would not be a trace in the installed system of the licenses of those
> source-only dependencies.

That can also be the case with static libraries in other languages, and
so-called header-only libraries in C++. I always found it strange that
the license field policy singles out Rust, as I don't see how static
Rust libraries are legally different from other static libraries.

In cases where a library (in C or whatever) is packaged in both shared
and static forms, installing a statically linked program won't pull in
any library package. The shared library package with the license may or
may not be present depending on what else is installed.

> The situation with glibc, libgcc and libstdc++ is different because they
> are also installed separately, so their license information is always
> part of the installation.

Because the statically linked code is only a part of the library, and
the rest of the library is dynamically linked and thus pulled in as a
package with a license field? It seems to me that that argument would
also apply to inlined subroutines, generics, templates and similar code
snippets that get compiled into the using program. I believe many shared
libraries have such inlined snippets, and my impression is that they're
usually not reflected in the license field of programs that use the
library.

Björn Persson

Attachment: pgpE_P3auTunM.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur

_______________________________________________
legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux