From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2941 invoked by alias); 24 May 2003 14:07:15 -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 2933 invoked from network); 24 May 2003 14:07:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 May 2003 14:07:15 -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 h4OE7CH08937; Sat, 24 May 2003 10:07:12 -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 h4OE7CI08854; Sat, 24 May 2003 10:07:12 -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 h4OE7CZ08242; Sat, 24 May 2003 10:07:12 -0400 Received: (from dj@localhost) by greed.delorie.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h4OE7BC20286; Sat, 24 May 2003 10:07:11 -0400 Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 14:07:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200305241407.h4OE7BC20286@greed.delorie.com> From: DJ Delorie To: neroden@twcny.rr.com CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org In-reply-to: <20030524035710.GA30580@doctormoo> (message from Nathanael Nerode on Fri, 23 May 2003 23:57:10 -0400) Subject: Re: Libiberty license roundup (questions/potential problems) References: <20030524035710.GA30580@doctormoo> X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg02190.txt.bz2 > >The reason is, only the original author can change the copyright terms. > > Ah, but this part isn't really part of the copyright terms! Changing the package that a file belongs to changes the type of copyright assignment you need to have in order to edit that file. > I'm most worried about the one which doesn't technically have a > license for itself ("This file is part of libiberty. GCC is free > software...") and I'm hoping to avoid this kind of mishmash in the > future. Those still have authors and copyrights, though. > Ah, so libiberty is always statically linked, and only individual .o > files are linked with any particular program, so source files under > different licenses aren't unmanagably comingled? We should add a note > somewhere to the effect that it has to remain this way. :-) No, not at all. Parts are linked into libstdc++.so. Parts are linked into libbfd.so. That's why we have such a mess; some files have had license changes in order to be able to do that, but others haven't.