From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-105686-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 7258 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2004 06:58:42 -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 6881 invoked from network); 24 Nov 2004 06:58:37 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO boden.synopsys.com) (198.182.44.79)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 24 Nov 2004 06:58:37 -0000
Received: from crone.synopsys.com (crone.synopsys.com [146.225.7.23])
	by boden.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C1913DFC7; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:58:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from piper.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by crone.synopsys.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA15685;
	Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:58:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from jbuck@localhost)
	by piper.synopsys.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id iAO6waf25489;
	Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:58:36 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: piper.synopsys.com: jbuck set sender to Joe.Buck@synopsys.com using -f
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 07:52:00 -0000
From: Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM>
To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org>
Cc: Mike Stump <mrs@apple.com>, Biagio Lucini <lucini@phys.ethz.ch>,
	gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gomp@nongnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: OpenMP licensing problem: a solution
Message-ID: <20041123225835.A24919@synopsys.com>
References: <200411230916.36569.lucini@phys.ethz.ch> <D17D35C7-33A7-4DD0-B889-7920EFDC942C@apple.com> <Pine.LNX.4.60.0411231944000.29669@dberlin.org> <D8E4A4C4-FBE9-4C2F-BD67-53F18926050D@apple.com> <Pine.LNX.4.60.0411232100220.29669@dberlin.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0411232100220.29669@dberlin.org>; from dberlin@dberlin.org on Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 09:09:13PM -0500
X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00879.txt.bz2

On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 09:09:13PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 1. What is really an acceptable answer based on the law may not  be the 
> same as what you think it is :). (While it may turn out often that what a 
> lawyer will accept is a lot more conservative than what you've come up 
> with, this isn't always the case).
> 
> 2. Even if you had the "lawyers acceptable answer", you aren't the one who 
> can do anything with it, only the FSF/SC (or someone who officially 
> represents GCC) can.

Anything legally tricky the SC does not look at; it goes straight to
RMS and Eben Moglen, or else we just stay away from it.