Mail Archives: cygwin/2012/04/04/01:00:42
X-Recipient: | archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
|
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: | No, hits=-6.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,TW_GC
|
X-Spam-Check-By: | sourceware.org
|
Message-ID: | <4F7BD54E.2000900@cwilson.fastmail.fm>
|
Date: | Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:59:58 -0400
|
From: | Charles Wilson <cygwin AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm>
|
User-Agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666
|
MIME-Version: | 1.0
|
To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
|
Subject: | Re: GCJ related questions
|
References: | <BAY147-W509AA41BDF6867B0F674AD04D0 AT phx DOT gbl> <4F7A8F85 DOT 1070201 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net> <4F7B4DE4 DOT 4040502 AT towo DOT net>
|
In-Reply-To: | <4F7B4DE4.4040502@towo.net>
|
Mailing-List: | contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
|
List-Id: | <cygwin.cygwin.com>
|
List-Subscribe: | <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
|
List-Archive: | <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
|
List-Post: | <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
|
List-Help: | <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
|
Sender: | cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
|
Mail-Followup-To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
|
Delivered-To: | mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
|
On 4/3/2012 3:22 PM, Thomas Wolff wrote:
> So the gcj package should actually not have been included in cygwin at
> all without the proper dependency and the necessary packages, if I
> understood the cygwin policy correctly.
IIUC gcc4-java is an explicit exception at the moment -- because there
have been concerns about ecj's license, as well as "self hosting" concerns.
1) Licensing. If you want to discuss this bit further, take it to the
cygwin-licensing list. Now, ecj is under the EFL-1.0 license, which is
OSI-approved. So, *cygwin* shouldn't have any license compatibility
concerns, thanks to cygwin's "exception" clause in its version of the GPL:
> As a special exception to GPLv3+, Red Hat grants you permission to
> link software whose sources are distributed under a license that
> satisfies the Open Source Definition with libcygwin.a, without
> libcygwin.a itself causing the resulting program to be covered by
> GPLv3+.
However, it's not clear whether the *gcc* folks are as happy about
co-shipping ecj (if they were, then they would be doing it already). So,
stock gcc doesn't directly include ecj even though you'd need it for a
working gcj (bytecode) compiler.
And, following that pattern, cygwin's gcc packages have not been
*patched* to directly include a copy of ecj; they attempt to remain
pretty close to upstream (we've learned the hard way not to stray far
from the upstream codebase; that way lies madness.)
2) self-hosting. I seem to recall there was some issue with actually
building ecj using cygwin-gcc/gcj, but the details are fuzzy. So there
was some reluctance to include a "binary blob" we can't reproduce from
source; better to let end-users d/l so they can blame "those guys" if
they get a corrupt/malware version?
So, if "we" don't include ecj directly...then if we followed strict
policy we couldn't have gcc4-java at all. That's obviously not a good
solution. So...gcc4-java was an explicit exception to the "make sure
everything you need is included" policy.
--
Chuck
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -