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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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