[Libjit-developers] Re: Libjit-developers Digest, Vol 24, Issue 1

[Kirill Kononenko]

Hi all,


If everyone else agrees with the relicensing I am also okay with
relicensing under the "LGPL v2 or later".


Cheers,
Kirill

On 04/01/2008, address@hidden
<address@hidden> wrote:
> Send Libjit-developers mailing list submissions to
>        address@hidden
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libjit-developers
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        address@hidden
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        address@hidden
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Libjit-developers digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: libjit changes for archs with native ints     (pointer sizes)
>      greater than 32 bit (Aleksey Demakov)
>   2. libjit licensing (Aleksey Demakov)
>   3. Re: [Pnet-developers] libjit licensing (Aleksey Demakov)
>   4. Re: [Pnet-developers] libjit licensing (Norbert Bollow)
>   5. Re: [Pnet-developers] libjit licensing (Norbert Bollow)
>   6. Re: [Pnet-developers] libjit licensing (Aleksey Demakov)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 23:34:23 +0600
> From: "Aleksey Demakov" <address@hidden>
> Subject: [Libjit-developers] Re: libjit changes for archs with native
>        ints    (pointer sizes) greater than 32 bit
> To: "Klaus Treichel" <address@hidden>
> Cc: libjit developers <address@hidden>
> Message-ID:
>        <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hi Klaus,
>
> > On making the interpreter running the pnet hello sample on x86_64 i
> > stepped over some code wrapped in #if JIT_NATIVE_INT32 or #if
> > JIT_NATIVE_INT64 in jit-insn.c that confuses me.
> >
> > So i have one question:
> >
> > The type jit_int is always 4 bytes in size. So why is there this
> > conditional compilation?
>
> These #ifs are for the target platform's native int not for
> jit_int.
>
> > An other issue is that pointers (native int) are longs on 64 bit archs.
> > Is it correct to set the is_nint_constant in
> > jit_value_create_long_constant?
> >
>
> What problem does it solve? I see no need for this change.
>
> >
> > Doing some of the changes made pnet's hello sample run with libjit
> > interpreter on x86_64.
> >
>
> That's strange that it made a difference in your setup. These
> changes do not seem to fix any real problem for me.
>
> Regards,
> Aleksey
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 00:47:02 +0600
> From: "Aleksey Demakov" <address@hidden>
> Subject: [Libjit-developers] libjit licensing
> To: "libjit developers" <address@hidden>,
>        address@hidden
> Message-ID:
>        <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hi all,
>
> Here we go again. Just before the libjit-0.1.0 release we discussed
> relaxing the libjit license. However his step has not been taken due
> to some disagreements.
>
> I would like to bring up this issue again for the libjit-0.1.2 release.
> The reasons for relicensing libjit are as follows:
>
> * other libraries with a similar scope use weaker licenses
>  (GNU lightning - LGPL, LLVM - something BSD-like)
>
> * the current libjit license was already cited as one of the reasons
>  the project using it was abandoned  (http://tromey.com/blog/?p=16)
>  and  people keep voicing concerns about it as recently was the case
>  with the ruby-libjit.
>
> So I would like to relicense libjit under LGPL v2 for the 0.1.2 release
> As far as I remember the last time we discussed it all the major
> contributors has already agreed on LGPL v2. Are there any abjections
> to this now?
>
> Regards,
> Aleksey
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 01:20:56 +0600
> From: "Aleksey Demakov" <address@hidden>
> Subject: [Libjit-developers] Re: [Pnet-developers] libjit licensing
> To: "Norbert Bollow" <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Message-ID:
>        <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Jan 4, 2008 1:08 AM, Norbert Bollow <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Aleksey Demakov <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > > So I would like to relicense libjit under LGPL v2 for the 0.1.2 release
> > > As far as I remember the last time we discussed it all the major
> > > contributors has already agreed on LGPL v2. Are there any abjections
> > > to this now?
> >
> > While I think that LGPL is a good choice of license, I think that
> > "LGPL v2 or later" is a better choice than "LGPL v2".
> >
> > Or is there a spcific reason against choosing "LGPL v2 or later"?
> >
>
> I personally have nothing against the "LGPL v2 or later" wording.
>
> But unfortunately when we discussed it we referred to it just
> as "LGPL" without further specifics. For instance:
>
> http://dotgnu.org/pipermail/libjit-developers/2007-February/000089.html
>
> At that time v3 was not ready yet so I think it is a safe bet that
> when we all were saying "LGPL" we all meant LGPL v2.
>
> Currently if it is possible to reach Rhys and others again and
> we will be able to agree on this issue then it would be fine with
> me. But at the moment I think I am able to interpret our old
> agreement only in a conservative way - that is only the version
> that existed at that time.
>
> Regards,
> Aleksey
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu,  3 Jan 2008 20:40:38 +0100 (CET)
> From: Norbert Bollow <address@hidden>
> Subject: [Libjit-developers] Re: [Pnet-developers] libjit licensing
> To: address@hidden
> Cc: address@hidden
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Aleksey Demakov <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > So I would like to relicense libjit under LGPL v2 for the 0.1.2 release
> > As far as I remember the last time we discussed it all the major
> > contributors has already agreed on LGPL v2. Are there any abjections
> > to this now?
>
> While I think that LGPL is a good choice of license, I think that
> "LGPL v2 or later" is a better choice than "LGPL v2".
>
> Or is there a spcific reason against choosing "LGPL v2 or later"?
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu,  3 Jan 2008 20:53:11 +0100 (CET)
> From: Norbert Bollow <address@hidden>
> Subject: [Libjit-developers] Re: [Pnet-developers] libjit licensing
> To: address@hidden
> Cc: address@hidden
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Aleksey Demakov <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > > While I think that LGPL is a good choice of license, I think that
> > > "LGPL v2 or later" is a better choice than "LGPL v2".
> > >
> > > Or is there a spcific reason against choosing "LGPL v2 or later"?
> > >
> >
> > I personally have nothing against the "LGPL v2 or later" wording.
> >
> > But unfortunately when we discussed it we referred to it just
> > as "LGPL" without further specifics. For instance:
> >
> > http://dotgnu.org/pipermail/libjit-developers/2007-February/000089.html
> >
> > At that time v3 was not ready yet so I think it is a safe bet that
> > when we all were saying "LGPL" we all meant LGPL v2.
>
> Currently libjit is licensed "GPL v2 or later".
>
> Also, I believe that it's a general GNU policy to include the "or
> later" option.
>
> Therefore I would suggest that the only reasonable way to interpret
> a decision to change the license to "LGPL" (without specification
> of the version number) would be to keep the "or later" part alive.
>
> IMO there's a major problem with "LGPL v2 only" licensing in that
> that's not compatible with GPLv3, and that's a license compatibility
> that IMO we should avoid breaking...
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 01:51:02 +0600
> From: "Aleksey Demakov" <address@hidden>
> Subject: [Libjit-developers] Re: [Pnet-developers] libjit licensing
> To: "Norbert Bollow" <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Message-ID:
>        <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Jan 4, 2008 1:53 AM, Norbert Bollow <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > Currently libjit is licensed "GPL v2 or later".
> >
>
> Right, I missed that.
>
> > Also, I believe that it's a general GNU policy to include the "or
> > later" option.
> >
> > Therefore I would suggest that the only reasonable way to interpret
> > a decision to change the license to "LGPL" (without specification
> > of the version number) would be to keep the "or later" part alive.
> >
>
> Yes, on the second thought, I agree with you.
>
> Anybody else?
>
> Regards,
> Aleksey
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Libjit-developers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libjit-developers
>
>
> End of Libjit-developers Digest, Vol 24, Issue 1
> ************************************************
>