Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mold – A really fast linker

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 64 posts

Re: Mold – A really fast linker

#11

Post by nicoburns »

satvikpendem wrote: post #2

Note that there have been some license controversies with mold before, namely that they wanted to make all outputs AGPL, not simply mold itself [0], seems like they walked this policy back however [1]. > Open-source license: mold stays in AGPL, but _we claim AGPL propagates to the linker's output_. That is, we claim that the output from the linker is a derivative work of the linker. That's a bold claim but not entire…

In fairness, this was just a proposal (from someone who clearly has more knowledge of engineering than law). They got feedback that this isn't how the AGPL works, and decided to go with a commercial license for the macOS version instead. Which is annoying for me, as I was hoping to use mold on macOS and the monthly subscription seems a bit steep for a linker, but it seems like a perfectly reasonable license.

Re: Mold – A really fast linker

#12

Post by kelnos »

satvikpendem wrote: post #5
netr0ute wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the AGPL such an issue?

It's not, if it's contained to just the linker itself (which it is now), that's not why I stopped using it. I did so because it seems like they don't understand that much about AGPL and licensing in general and could change their license terms at any point to say something like "we claim AGPL propagates to the linker's output" which is very legally tenuous itself to claim so.

Tenuous or not, I believe GCC explicitly has a licensing exception that states that compiler output is not considered a derivative work of the compiler, and thus must also be licensed under the GPL. So the GNU/FSF folks at least thought it was a concerning enough legal idea to explicitly account for it.

Not sure we can say that a linker is the same as a compiler in this sense, but if so, maybe it is indeed worrisome.

Re: Mold – A really fast linker

#13

Post by CJefferson »

dark-star wrote: post #7
satvikpendem wrote: post #2

Note that there have been some license controversies with mold before, namely that they wanted to make all outputs AGPL, not simply mold itself [0], seems like they walked this policy back however [1]. > Open-source license: mold stays in AGPL, but _we claim AGPL propagates to the linker's output_. That is, we claim that the output from the linker is a derivative work of the linker. That's a bold claim but not entire…

wow. that borders on extortion... "you should really buy a license... who knows, otherwise your code might turn into AGPL, good luck with the expensive court fees..."

What the heck? You can get an AGPL linker for free, or pay for a non-AGPL one. This type of thing is standard in OS. Selling a product isn't extortion.

Re: Mold – A really fast linker

#14

Post by wmf »

irogers wrote: post #10
satvikpendem wrote: post #2

Note that there have been some license controversies with mold before, namely that they wanted to make all outputs AGPL, not simply mold itself [0], seems like they walked this policy back however [1]. > Open-source license: mold stays in AGPL, but _we claim AGPL propagates to the linker's output_. That is, we claim that the output from the linker is a derivative work of the linker. That's a bold claim but not entire…

Problem with my open-source startup: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kiW9qmNlJ9oQZM6r5o4_N54s... Worth a read and I'm sure Rui would appreciate ways to resolve this.

This whole thread is old. He already split the Mac version into a separate commercial product.

Re: Mold – A really fast linker

#15

Post by daveguy »

CJefferson wrote: post #13
dark-star wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wow. that borders on extortion... "you should really buy a license... who knows, otherwise your code might turn into AGPL, good luck with the expensive court fees..."

What the heck? You can get an AGPL linker for free, or pay for a non-AGPL one. This type of thing is standard in OS. Selling a product isn't extortion.

It is unusual for the products of compilers and linkers to be infected by the original license. See: gcc.

Re: Mold – A really fast linker

#16

Post by mmastrac »

daveguy wrote: post #15
CJefferson wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the heck? You can get an AGPL linker for free, or pay for a non-AGPL one. This type of thing is standard in OS. Selling a product isn't extortion.

It is unusual for the products of compilers and linkers to be infected by the original license. See: gcc.

I don't recall seeing a single developer tool where the output was anything other than fully under the copyright of the author of the input files (or fully liberally licensed in the case of additional code objects).

Re: Mold – A really fast linker

#17

Post by lokar »

satvikpendem wrote: post #2

Note that there have been some license controversies with mold before, namely that they wanted to make all outputs AGPL, not simply mold itself [0], seems like they walked this policy back however [1]. > Open-source license: mold stays in AGPL, but _we claim AGPL propagates to the linker's output_. That is, we claim that the output from the linker is a derivative work of the linker. That's a bold claim but not entire…

That only claims the output is AGPL, not the code you feed into it.

Re: Mold – A really fast linker

#18

Post by btdmaster »

kelnos wrote: post #12
satvikpendem wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not, if it's contained to just the linker itself (which it is now), that's not why I stopped using it. I did so because it seems like they don't understand that much about AGPL and licensing in general and could change their license terms at any point to say something like "we claim AGPL propagates to the linker's output" which is very legally tenuous itself to claim so.

Tenuous or not, I believe GCC explicitly has a licensing exception that states that compiler output is not considered a derivative work of the compiler, and thus must also be licensed under the GPL. So the GNU/FSF folks at least thought it was a concerning enough legal idea to explicitly account for it. Not sure we can say that a linker is the same as a compiler in this sense, but if so, maybe it is indeed worrisome.

It does not look like binutils (including ld.gold) has that exception[0], so I don't think the FSF would agree.

[0] https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=blob;f=READ...

Re: Mold – A really fast linker

#19

Post by Y_Y »

satvikpendem wrote: post #2

Note that there have been some license controversies with mold before, namely that they wanted to make all outputs AGPL, not simply mold itself [0], seems like they walked this policy back however [1]. > Open-source license: mold stays in AGPL, but _we claim AGPL propagates to the linker's output_. That is, we claim that the output from the linker is a derivative work of the linker. That's a bold claim but not entire…

So just use mold during development and another linker for release.

Re: Mold – A really fast linker

#20

Post by MaxBarraclough »

mikebenfield wrote: post #8
netr0ute wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is the AGPL such an issue?

Normally the tools people use don’t dictate the license they must use for their code.

The point of copyleft is to dictate the licence you must use, if you wish to (roughly speaking) link with the copyleft-licensed work. There are plenty of libraries that you cannot use if you wish to distribute your program without making its source-code available.

The unusual thing here is that the creators of a linker are apparently trying to have the copyleft licence propagate to code that is input to the linker. Others have pointed out that GCC has exceptions for this kind of thing, despite that it is released under a strong copyleft licence (GPLv3+).

Post reply on HN