From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23067 invoked by alias); 7 May 2003 19:19:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cgen-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cgen-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 22991 invoked from network); 7 May 2003 19:19:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neon-gw.transmeta.com) (63.209.4.196) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 May 2003 19:19:22 -0000 Received: (from root@localhost) by neon-gw.transmeta.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA06084; Wed, 7 May 2003 12:19:12 -0700 Received: from mailhost.transmeta.com(10.1.1.15) by neon-gw.transmeta.com via smap (V2.1) id xma006069; Wed, 7 May 03 12:18:53 -0700 Received: from casey.transmeta.com (casey.transmeta.com [10.10.25.22]) by deepthought.transmeta.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h47JIua10654; Wed, 7 May 2003 12:18:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dje@localhost) by casey.transmeta.com (8.9.3/8.7.3) id MAA31435; Wed, 7 May 2003 12:18:56 -0700 From: Doug Evans MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16057.23584.595530.27519@casey.transmeta.com> Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 19:19:00 -0000 To: Andrew Cagney Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Andrew Cagney , binutils@sources.redhat.com, cgen@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] FRV input files In-Reply-To: <3EB95197.70405@redhat.com> References: <3EB31259.8050603@redhat.com> <16051.5717.174285.478274@casey.transmeta.com> <3EB40A72.1060304@redhat.com> <16052.10331.372341.322890@casey.transmeta.com> <3EB43D55.7000508@redhat.com> <3EB52E1C.8050205@redhat.com> <3EB82C29.2050201@redhat.com> <16057.12829.240057.205613@casey.transmeta.com> <3EB95197.70405@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-q2/txt/msg00032.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney writes: > Having the FSF distribute this code under anything other than the > standard GPL would be an "improvised license change". Ah, so if I wanted to add, say, a regexp package to Binutils releases and use it in libopcodes, I'd have to make it GPL right? [no answers from the peanut gallery please, I want to hear Andrew's opinion] > I [wearing a Red Hat] can't dictate the licencing terms under which the > FSF distributes these FSF (C) files. Strawman. Who said anything about dictating. > > Also, I'm not sure I want *.cpu to say it's part of Binutils. > > A file identified as being part of "binutils", is covered by an FSF > "binutils" assignment. This makes everyones life a lot easier. Easier for who and why?