* Björn Persson: > 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. Right. > 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. Yes, but that doesn't apply to the three libraries I listed. >> 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. Yes, that would be effective licensing analysis, and it would need toolchain support for correctness and efficiency. Thanks, Florian _______________________________________________ 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
