From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-19646-listarch-binutils=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 8392 invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2002 16:17:52 -0000
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 8380 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2002 16:17:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lodoss.net) (213.22.80.37)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Jul 2002 16:17:50 -0000
Received: from lodoss.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by lodoss.net (8.12.5/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g6PGRLO8002215
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-DSS-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO);
	Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:27:23 -0300 (ART)
Received: (from fgsch@localhost)
	by lodoss.net (8.12.5/8.12.1/Submit) id g6PGRCbN001283;
	Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:27:12 -0300 (ART)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 09:22:00 -0000
From: "Federico G. Schwindt" <fgsch@olimpo.com.br>
To: Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com>
Cc: cgd@broadcom.com, ian@airs.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: FW: gprof license
Message-ID: <20020725162711.GL21373@deedlit>
References: <m31ya0xgtk.fsf@north-pole.nickc.cambridge.redhat.com> <mailpost.1027336854.10384@news-sj1-1> <yov5lm837lye.fsf@broadcom.com> <siofcziu3o.fsf@daffy.airs.com> <mailpost.1027356720.18858@news-sj1-1> <yov5heir7l44.fsf@broadcom.com> <siit37it8f.fsf@daffy.airs.com> <yov5adoj7k7l.fsf@broadcom.com> <20020724015122.GS21373@deedlit> <m31y9sjf9f.fsf@north-pole.nickc.cambridge.redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <m31y9sjf9f.fsf@north-pole.nickc.cambridge.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00678.txt.bz2

Hi again,

> > I've permission from Kirk McKusick to update the gprof license to
> > the one below and then apply the UC letter to these licenses to get
> > rid of the advertising clause.
> 
> In which case are there any objections to my aplying the patch below
> and similar ones for other affected files in gprof ?

  Seems ok. The point (4) should be changed to (3), tho.
 
> Cheers
>         Nick
> 
> PS.  Should the copyright date be extended to include 2002 ?

  I don't know.

> PS.  Is it OK to reformat the copyright notice to conform to GNU
>      coding standards ?

  I don't think this is a problem.

  f.-