Mingw runtime library license

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
ml
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Mingw runtime library license

ml
Would the MinGW runtime library developers be willing to consider
re-licensing the runtime library code as a dual license where users can
use the current MIT style license and/or a Creative Commons license CC0?

It would offer a more flexible licensing scheme than the MinGW64 project.
Users in countries who need a more formal license like the MIT license
will still be accommodated.  Users who preferred the more liberal public
domain distribution could work with the CC0 license.  Several Open Source
projects are dual licensed.  It's useful if someone wants to work with
code in a project and would have trouble combining it with other code
that's already under a specific licensing scheme.

I read some of the threads that discussed the rationale behind the MIT
style license change.  It was mentioned that developers should have no
trouble using the runtime library code with the new license when they
develop their own applications.  However, I develop applications for some
people who don't feel comfortable with the new runtime licensing.  I am
currently using MinGW with gcc 4.7, but will need to upgrade at some
point.  I'd really hate to have to create yet another fork of MinGW (later
version of gcc with public domain version of the MinGW runtime libraries),
because the people I develop for feel uncomfortable with the current
mingwrt license.

Saw some posts that said the GCC Runtime Library Exception would cover use
of the runtime library as part of an application.  However, according to
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1-faq.html:
The GCC Runtime Library Exception covers any file that has a notice in its
license headers stating that the exception applies.
I didn't see the GCC Runtime Library Exception mentioned in the MinGW
headers (
http://sourceforge.net/p/mingw/mingw-org-wsl/ci/21762bb4a1bd0c88c38eead03f59e8d994349e83/tree/LICENSE
 ).  The license at http://www.mingw.org/license says:
"Note that this new license does not carry forward to needing to
distribution of said license when you use the w32api to build your source.
It only covers the distribution of the library, in source or binary form
or any part thereof such as mingwm10.dll."  However, I only saw this
information at the web site.  Couldn't find it in the runtime library
source code or the tarball when I looked.

There's more information on the CC0 license at:
http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

Personally, I can't think of a downside to using a dual license with the
MinGW runtime libraries.  It makes the licensing more flexible and suits
more users needs rather than accommodating less users.  How do the current
MinGW runtime developers feel about the possibility of dual licensing?  I
would love to see this become a reality for MinGW.  Thank you.

Sincerely,
Laura
http://www.distasis.com/cpp


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
MinGW-users mailing list
[hidden email]

This list observes the Etiquette found at
http://www.mingw.org/Mailing_Lists.
We ask that you be polite and do the same.  Disregard for the list etiquette may cause your account to be moderated.

_______________________________________________
You may change your MinGW Account Options or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-users
Also: mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mingw runtime library license

John E. / TDM
On 8/10/2014 7:11 AM, [hidden email] wrote:
> Would the MinGW runtime library developers be willing to consider
> re-licensing the runtime library code as a dual license where users can
> use the current MIT style license and/or a Creative Commons license CC0?
*snip*
> Personally, I can't think of a downside to using a dual license with the
> MinGW runtime libraries.  It makes the licensing more flexible and suits
> more users needs rather than accommodating less users.  How do the current
> MinGW runtime developers feel about the possibility of dual licensing?  I
> would love to see this become a reality for MinGW.  Thank you.

Hi Laura,

As another MinGW user with similar qualms about the MIT-style license, I
appreciate this rational and polite plea for an alternative an awful
lot! You're not alone.

Earnie, Keith et al., I view the current licensing situation for
user-generated binaries linked with MinGW libraries and objects as less
than ideal (I've expressed this before). I hope you'll continue to
devote thought toward a better software license situation such as the
one presented.

-John E. / TDM

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
MinGW-users mailing list
[hidden email]

This list observes the Etiquette found at
http://www.mingw.org/Mailing_Lists.
We ask that you be polite and do the same.  Disregard for the list etiquette may cause your account to be moderated.

_______________________________________________
You may change your MinGW Account Options or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-users
Also: mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe