From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20479 invoked by alias); 23 May 2003 23:06:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 20456 invoked from network); 23 May 2003 23:06:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 May 2003 23:06:13 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4NN6DH11955; Fri, 23 May 2003 19:06:13 -0400 Received: from post-office.corp.redhat.com (post-office.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.227]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4NN6CI15471; Fri, 23 May 2003 19:06:12 -0400 Received: from greed.delorie.com (dj.cipe.redhat.com [10.0.0.222]) by post-office.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4NN6CZ06952; Fri, 23 May 2003 19:06:12 -0400 Received: (from dj@localhost) by greed.delorie.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4NN6Bh16936; Fri, 23 May 2003 19:06:11 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 23:16:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200305232306.h4NN6Bh16936@greed.delorie.com> From: DJ Delorie To: neroden@twcny.rr.com CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20030523225905.GA30461@doctormoo> (message from Nathanael Nerode on Fri, 23 May 2003 18:59:05 -0400) Subject: Re: Libiberty license roundup (questions/potential problems) References: <20030523225905.GA30461@doctormoo> X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg02157.txt.bz2 > Looking at libiberty, it seems to be under a mass of different > licences. Yup. It will probably stay that way, too, because changing copyright terms is *very* difficult. > The fourth are the various files which aren't sure what they're part > of; I'd like permission to just fix those all to claim to be part of > libiberty, unless there's some reason not to. The reason is, only the original author can change the copyright terms. > The fifth is the question of why some are LGPL, some are GPL, some > are GPL with linking exception, and one is LGPL with linking > exception. Effectively the library as a whole is under GPL in > general, it would seem; what purpose do the other licenses serve? Some have the exception because they're used in libstdc++, for example. There is no "library as a whole" as far as libiberty is concerned; each source file has its own license, and that's pretty much the end of the story, since there's little we can do about it.