Um, no, several recent changes have been to _allow_ Pike to compile on Cygwin, but there's still some things left to do apparently.

Cygwin hasn't been working for at least a month. I'm not sure if 7.3 has _ever_ been able to compile on Cygwin.

/ Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!)

Previous text:

2002-10-07 11:52: Subject: Re: Split

---

Le Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Henrik Grubbström (Lysator) @ Pike (-) developers forum...:

...

Mainly _Image_JPEG.

Seems that recents changes avoid pike to be compiled on Cygwin... :-P

/Xavier

Xavier Beaudouin - Unix System Administrator & Projects Leader. For mail address, please check header of this mails. Spams are not accepted. Caudium: http://caudium.net/, CAMAS webmail: http://camas.caudium.net/ Making friends with FreeBSD: Just because the system has panicked doesn`t mean that you should panic too.

/ Brevbäraren

In the credits in the header of dvb.c you list sources from which code was taken. Are they all compatible with LGPL and MPL?

/ Martin Nilsson (Fake Build Master)

Previous text:

2002-10-08 17:36: Subject: Split

---

What is wrong with DVB module?

/ Honza (hop) Petrous

No, LGPL is not OK if the code is GPL.

We cannot have GPL or other non-LGPL/MPL compatible code in the pike distribution (or CVS), so if they did not agree to the relicensing, the module can not be included in Pike.

/ Per Hedbor ()

Previous text:

2002-10-08 17:50: Subject: Split

---

I know only that code from DVB device driver distro is GPL, so LGPL should be ok too (I guess). But I know nothing about MPL relicensing such sources.

Does it mean that I must ask (c) owners about MPL relicensing to include such code blocks in Pike?

And if they rejected it ... ?

/ Honza (hop) Petrous

If I understand it right then I have to request from (c) owners ACK for including theirs parts of code in Pike under GPL/LGPL & MPL licences.

/ Honza (hop) Petrous

Previous text:

2002-10-08 18:01: Subject: Split

---

Relicensing is not enough. I point to the policy document again: http://pike.ida.liu.se/development/cvs/policies.xml

Especially: "Pike copyrights - we consider all contributions to Pike donations and claim copyright for the entire Pike repository. This also means that IDA will have full power to take legal actions against anyone who would actually manage to break the license."

Any exception to that should be well motivated, discussed with the CVS maintainer (nilsson currently) and well marked up in the source.

/ Peter Bortas

I would understand it if my efford was only cut'n'paste. But it is not true - basicly all functions was modified to fit my (and Pike's) needs better.

So I couldn't mark any visible area.

/ Honza (hop) Petrous

Previous text:

2002-10-08 18:40: Subject: Split

---

Could work if you talk with nilsson about it first and mark the affected areas in the code as discussed earlier with the JPEG code.

Normal code has to be unaffected by any license when it is checked in.

/ Peter Bortas

BTW, a quick grep 'GNU General' returns two modules: src/modules/Msql/ and src/modules/Postgres/

/ Honza (hop) Petrous

Previous text:

2002-10-08 18:54: Subject: Split

---

All adapted code has to be marked then.

/ Peter Bortas

OK. A quick question about moving rights about some part of DVB module code was done with assumed result - no possible.

So I just remove 'unhealthy' code and when time allows I try to rewrite PES parsing code (which is a only one really needed). In meantime I will use my private copy to use it :(

/ Honza (hop) Petrous

Previous text:

2002-10-08 19:12: Subject: Split

---

Perhaps I should make a sweep and update the license in all c and h files to the standard blurb.

/*\ ||| This file is part of Pike. For copyright information see COPYRIGHT. ||| Pike is distributed under GPL, LGPL and MPL. See the file COPYING ||| for more information. */

/ Martin Nilsson (Fake Build Master)

Since I know nothing about DVB, what is PES and how important is it? I

PES is acronym for packetized elementary stream, which is one of streams (video, audio 1, audio 2 ..., teletext, rds ...) defined one program stream, ie. TV or radio channel.

PES parsing is very important for me as it is main tool for retrieving payload data from PES.

Until I decide which way I go with it I removed PES parser code from DVB module.

see that you have removed DVB support from the changes file although the module is still in CVS (except for PES support). Is there "DVB support" or not?

Yes, there is a DVB support, as the rest of code is still working, so only retriving real data from stream is affected - basicly DVB.Stream object is dumb. Other objects (DVB.dvb for tuning and section data parsing and DVB.Audio for MP2 decoder control) are still usable.

I removed it from CHANGES because the main power of DVB module was cut off, so there is nothing happy to inform about (from my private point of view).

/ Honza (hop) Petrous

Previous text:

2002-10-08 21:17: Subject: Split

---

Since I know nothing about DVB, what is PES and how important is it? I see that you have removed DVB support from the changes file although the module is still in CVS (except for PES support). Is there "DVB support" or not?

/ Martin Nilsson (Fake Build Master)

Henrik, I know :) It was only a note.

/ Honza (hop) Petrous

Previous text:

2002-10-08 19:13: Subject: Split

---

Both of those were bought by Roxen IS from Kinkie some time ago.

/ Henrik Grubbström (Lysator)

No, LGPL is not OK if the code is GPL.

(Because the implication goes the other way; LGPL implies GPL, but GPL is more severe/strict, so GPL does not imply LGPL.)

We cannot have GPL or other non-LGPL/MPL compatible code in the pike distribution (or CVS), so if they did not agree to the relicensing, the module can not be included in Pike.

A minor clarification that might or might not be needed; we can of course have such code in CVS, just not in the Pike repository.

/ Johan Sundström (ska bli kalif i stället för kalifen)

Previous text:

2002-10-08 17:55: Subject: Split

---

No, LGPL is not OK if the code is GPL.

We cannot have GPL or other non-LGPL/MPL compatible code in the pike distribution (or CVS), so if they did not agree to the relicensing, the module can not be included in Pike.

/ Per Hedbor ()

No?

/ Johan Sundström (ska bli kalif i stället för kalifen)

Previous text:

2002-10-08 18:04: Subject: Split

---

Uhm, didn't you point your implies in wrong direction now?

/ Per Hedbor ()

Let's just conclude that the clarification wasn't, and ignore it. :-)

/ Johan Sundström (ska bli kalif i stället för kalifen)

Previous text:

2002-10-08 18:08: Subject: Split

---

I can make a case for both sides actually. I don't think implication arrows work very well here. :)

/ Peter Bortas

You are probably right regarding the parts who link GPLed code; doing that would imply that the derived work has to be GPLed as well, if it would be distributed further.

Considering the case where we link with LGPLed code, that should have no bearing on the license of the derived work, though (but perhaps you didn't consider that case here because this would be obvious, from the LGPL core idea).

/ Johan Sundström (ska bli kalif i stället för kalifen)

Previous text:

2002-10-09 11:26: Subject: Split

---

What about the following scenario:

I write some code that gets into some module in the Pike cvs, assigning copyright of that code to IDA, any license of their choice, etc. But the code links with GPL:ed code.

The reasonable way to look at this situation is to say that this is exaclty what the LGPL->GPL upgrade clause in the LGPL is for. So it's fine to link all of this together, as long as the result treated as a GPL:ed work.

From a practical point of view, that means that if a Pike-installation includes one module A, linking to GPL:ed code, and another module B, linking to GPL-incompatible code, one shouldn't use both A and B in the same program. Technically, *use* is still allowed, of course, but if I distribute code that uses both A and B, I can expect the author of the GPL:ed code to be pissed at me.

Do you agree with this interpretation?

So one should make sure to document which modules depend on GPL:ed code (i.e. modules that require the use of the LGPL->GPL upgrade clause), and modules that depend on GPL-incompatible code (defined as code the license of which does *not* allow upgrading to the GPL).

/ Niels Möller ()

Then putting their code in the main Pike tree would be off limits, I suppose. Hosting a pike-modules repository where code under licenses that are not compatible with Pike on the site is of course no problem.

(Perhaps a better name should be found, though, if others besides me associate "pike-modules" with "pmod".)

/ Johan Sundström (ska bli kalif i stället för kalifen)

Previous text:

2002-10-08 17:50: Subject: Split

---

I know only that code from DVB device driver distro is GPL, so LGPL should be ok too (I guess). But I know nothing about MPL relicensing such sources.

Does it mean that I must ask (c) owners about MPL relicensing to include such code blocks in Pike?

And if they rejected it ... ?

/ Honza (hop) Petrous