7 hours ago
So it looks like at least one contributor of `arm-gen.c` does not want to relicense. Does that mean that the architecture I'm compiling for dictates what license I should refer to? Or would I need to compile a version of tcc without `arm-gen.c` present at all so I could be confident that I'm using MIT licensed software?
5 hours ago
Glöckner appears to be exhibiting undefined behaviour.
4 hours ago
The last man standing against the sellout. Good man
34 minutes ago
I wouldn't call it a sellout as they are being asked to grant everyone more rights. More ignorance or carelessness? of who they are helping like those on certain export control lists.
8 hours ago
Is there more context to this? Why are they doing this relicensing?
8 hours ago
It's not a new development. It started in 2013:
https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/tinycc-devel/2013-05/m...
8 hours ago
They are relicensing from LGPL to MIT.
MIT is a more permissive license, which obviously appeals to some people.
I believe one issue in particular is around static vs dynamic linking – you can use an LGPL library from non-GPL code (even proprietary code) via dynamic linking, but LGPL only allows you to static link if all code in the executable is under a GPL-compatible license.
Okay, maybe that isn't technically true – from what I understand, the LGPL will let you statically link LGPL code with GPL-incompatible code, provided you either (a) make the GPL-incompatible code source-available, or (b) at least ship object files for the GPL-incompatible code so the end-user can relink the executable. The point is that the LGPL requires you to make it possible for the end-user to modify the LGPL bits, even if they aren't allowed to modify the rest of the executable. But, many people don't see these two approaches as acceptable.
8 hours ago