Re: Test framework; and what should be in 1.1.0

[David Sugar]

Glibc is under the LGPL, as are some other libraries in the GNU system.  
Generally we primarly use the GPL for libraries primarly when there is no 
non-free implimentation or non-free similar library already in existance 
(readline being the most often sited example) and the possibility of helping 
further proprietary development exists if we use the LGPL as a result.   
There are many frameworks under various proprietary and free licenses, so 
there is no benefit taken away from proprietary developers by restricting GNU 
Common C++ only for linking with free applications, just as there is no real 
benefit derived for the GNU system as a whole by having glibc under a pure 
GPL since what would happen is that other existing libc's (BSD comes to 
mind..) would have then been placed on GNU systems by others instead.  

On Friday 03 January 2003 09:37, Albert Strasheim wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, 03 Jan 2003, David Sugar wrote:
> > At this point, it seems destined for the 1.1 release, and no date has
> > been set yet for when that will be made available.  So, no, there is no
> > immediate rush
> >
> > :).
>
> Still, I think Chad and I will be able to prepare a nice patch in the
> next week or two which should go into CVS; then other people can start
> writing tests too.
>
> > It might be worth asserting what things remain to be done for a 1.1
> > release to occur, and for that I would like to suggest the following:
> >
> > * from the threading perspective, support for pth based ng Linux
> > threading, and alternate compile option that can compile for systems that
> > use the pth library.
>
> Seems Pth is licensed under the LGPL. Cool.
>
> As I understand, Pth provides a layer on top of POSIX-conformant thread
> implementations on Unix platforms. Is this correct?
>
> Seems you want to provide a Thread class implemented on top of Pth?
> Isn't the pthread_* code always going to be inferior to this
> implementation?
>
> > * completion (by me) of ccssl...
> >
> > * integration of new counter code
>
> I will make a final patch for this once we've merged the test framework
> code.
>
> > * addition of IP6Address classes and ip6 socket support.  (this may
> > actually be fairly easy to add...)
> >
> > * new testing framework
>
> I'd say we will probably be ready to submit something for inclusion into
> CVS by this time next week. Chad?
>
> By the way, I've noticed something rather interesting with regards to
> licensing of the various libraries out there. As I see it, the Thread
> class in Common C++ is competing directly with the QThread part of Qt,
> which is licensed under the GPL (no linking exception). Qt is licensed
> under the GPL to force people who don't want to pay for Qt, but still
> want all its features, to write GPLed code.
>
> QThread probably isn't the most impressive part of Qt, but I find it
> amusing that the GNU project is supporting a project (Common C++) that
> is developing code that provides people with a way of not GPLing their
> code, while still getting the benefits of a nice thread abstraction
> layer. I wonder what RMS has to say about this... :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Albert
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-commoncpp mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-commoncpp