Re: [fink-core] Running Octave from Fink?

On Nov 13, 2012, at 6:23 PM, Sergei Steshenko wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Sergei Steshenko <[email protected]>
>> To: [email protected]; edmund ronald <[email protected]>
>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:08 AM
>> Subject: Re: [fink-core] Running Octave from Fink?
>> 
>> 
>> --- On Tue, 11/13/12, edmund ronald <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> From: edmund ronald <[email protected]>
>> Subject: Re: [fink-core] Running Octave from Fink?
>> To: [email protected]
>> Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], 
>> [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], 
>> [email protected]
>> Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2012, 4:42 AM
>> 
>> [snip]
>> 
>> As all Apple software is based on gcc, a personal protest by you against 
>> Apple's practices would probably be quite effective - how come you 
>> aren't doing something?  This thread started with worries about restrictive 
>> Xcode licenses, which essentially translates for us to restrictive gcc licenses.
>> 
>> [snip]
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 
>> "As all Apple software is based on gcc" - where did you take that info 
>> from ?
>> 
>> LLVM is an _open_ source and _free_ (in FSF sense of the word) software, and for 
>> more than two years it has been self-hosting:
>> 
>> 
>> http://java.dzone.com/news/llvms-clang-compiler-achieves :
>> 
>> "
>> Self-sufficiency is a major milestone for any compiler technology.  The LLVM 
>> (Low Level Virtual Machine) developers were pleased to announce that their open 
>> source compiler, named Clang, has just reached this milestone.  Clang recently 
>> completed its first complete self-host by building all of the LLVM and itself.
>> 
>> In the testing process, Clang was able to compile over 550,000 lines of C++ 
>> code, which is the total amount of lines in LLVM and Clang.  The resulting 
>> binaries passed all of the regression test suites for Clang and LLVM.  The 
>> self-built Clang was then able to build the 550k lines LLVM and Clang code 
>> again.  The third Clang build was also fully-functional, which made the 
>> bootstrap complete.
>> ".
>> 
>> Furthermore there are Linux distros are partially based on LLVM already: 
>> http://en.opensuse.org/Portal:12.1 :
>> 
>> "
>> openSUSE 12.1 also comes with the just-released LLVM3 compiler tool and clang, 
>> the C/C++ compiler building upon LLVM. LLVM is employed by the open source ATI 
>> and NVIDIA accelerated graphics drivers and thus forms an integral part of a 
>> high-performance graphics stack on Linux. 
>> ".
>> 
>> Regards,
>>   Sergei.
> 
> Furthermore, did you visit https://developer.apple.com/opensource/ ? And did you read, for example, mDNSResponder-320.10.80 license:
> 
> "
> The majority of the source code in the mDNSResponder project is licensed
> under the terms of the Apache License, Version 2.0, available from:
>    <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0>
> 
> To accommodate license compatibility with the widest possible range
> of client code licenses, the shared library code, which is linked
> at runtime into the same address space as the client using it, is
> licensed under the terms of the "Three-Clause BSD License".
> 
> The Linux Name Service Switch code, contributed by National ICT
> Australia Ltd (NICTA) is licensed under the terms of the NICTA Public
> Software Licence (which is substantially similar to the "Three-Clause
> BSD License", with some additional language pertaining to Australian law).
> " ?
> 
> What exactly is non-free in the above license ?
> 
> Disclaimer: I never owned an Apple product and never worked for the company.
> 
> Regards,
>   Sergei.

Much of Apple's toolchain is licensed under the Apple Public Source License (now Version 2).

	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Public_Source_License

	http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html

(quote)
The FSF now considers the APSL to be a free software license with two major practical problems, reminiscent of the NPL:

	• It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary.
	• It is incompatible with the GPL.
(/quote)

Looks like the APSL qualifies as free, but it is not compatible with GPL.

Ben