From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-75189-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 7677 invoked by alias); 28 May 2003 22:23:56 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 7650 invoked from network); 28 May 2003 22:23:56 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 May 2003 22:23:56 -0000
Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338)
	id 43483F2D82; Wed, 28 May 2003 18:23:56 -0400 (EDT)
To: dewar@gnat.com, jbuck@synopsys.com
Subject: Re: Libiberty license roundup (questions/potential problems)
Cc: ac131313@redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com, dj@redhat.com,
	gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com, mrs@apple.com,
	neroden@twcny.rr.com
Message-Id: <20030528222356.43483F2D82@nile.gnat.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 00:10:00 -0000
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg02360.txt.bz2

> The only reason for using something other than the GPL is if a function
> turns out to be needed in a language support library as well.  Otherwise
> it suffices if the license is GPL or GPL-compatible.


Well of course I understand the abstract principle here, the issue is how
does it apply in this case.