From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14276 invoked by alias); 23 May 2003 23:59:05 -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 14186 invoked from network); 23 May 2003 23:59:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out1.apple.com) (17.254.0.52) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 May 2003 23:59:05 -0000 Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4NNx2iB000538 for ; Fri, 23 May 2003 16:59:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 23 May 2003 16:58:44 -0700 Received: from apple.com (mrs1.apple.com [17.201.24.248]) by scv1.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4NNwwRV001260; Fri, 23 May 2003 16:58:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 01:23:00 -0000 Subject: Re: Libiberty license roundup (questions/potential problems) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com To: Nathanael Nerode From: Mike Stump In-Reply-To: <20030523225905.GA30461@doctormoo> Message-Id: <849AB456-8D7A-11D7-8138-003065A77310@apple.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg02160.txt.bz2 On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 03:59 PM, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Looking at libiberty, it seems to be under a mass of different > licences. Yup. > There are several problems here. The first are the > (non-autogenerated) files > with no explicit copyright notice or licence. I would assume that > they were > under the terms of the "rest of libiberty", except that it's not clear > what that is. Someone would need to go back to the Cygnus devo tree and find out who and when they were checked in originally, and what files around that time the person was checking in and what status those files had. Steve checked in some of the files, and wrote some, quite a bit of those were PD. He also lifted some from BSD land. In general, we should split the source internally into two, those that are BSD/PD/GPL with libgcc exception, and another directory with LGPL/GPL code. I think that we should have two libraries, one for each of these directory hierarchies. Clarifying the result of this research into explicit terms in the files I think would be good. Clarifying that the files are part of libiberty I think would be good. > * No license, University of California copyright > xatexit.c I think this is supposed to be under a BSD style copyright. > * No license, FSF copyright > vfprintf.c This was written by us for us. I think it should be GPL with exception. Another way to clean it up, would be to check FreeBSD/NetBSD for corresponding versions of the routines, and replace the one in libiberty.