From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8371 invoked by alias); 28 Jul 2009 00:34:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 8362 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jul 2009 00:34:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp1.Stanford.EDU (HELO smtp1.stanford.edu) (171.67.219.81) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:34:36 +0000 Received: from smtp1.stanford.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id C2168178C4C for ; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:34:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from windlord.stanford.edu (windlord.Stanford.EDU [171.67.225.134]) by smtp1.stanford.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73C2A178C47 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:34:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by windlord.stanford.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 40A272F4C2; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:34:34 -0700 (PDT) To: "gcc\@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: Compiling programs licensed under the GPL version 2 with GCC 4.4 In-Reply-To: (Frank Ch. Eigler's message of "Mon\, 27 Jul 2009 10\:26\:56 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux) References: <87y6qcfprf.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <20090726015725.GA29580@synopsys.com> <87y6qc0wmc.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <20090726215044.GA21312@synopsys.com> <87ocr6ejwr.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <4A6D5274.6060605@gnu.org> <87prbmcvtx.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <4A6D7C4C.4040404@adacore.com> <87iqhecrsy.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <4A6D98F5.2080306@adacore.com> From: Russ Allbery Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 00:34:00 -0000 Message-ID: <877hxtprvp.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-07/txt/msg00577.txt.bz2 fche@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) writes: > Robert Dewar writes: >> Discussion of FSF policy on licensing issues is also off-topic for >> this mailing list. > Perhaps, yet the libgcc exception licensing issues were quite > prominently discussed right here, and not too many months ago. > Florian's concern sounds linearly connected to that. If this is as > trivial a matter as some people seem to hint, perhaps someone can supply > a link to a prior discussion for it. Furthermore, the people Robert is telling him to go ask are not replying to their e-mail. Given that, on-topic or not, I think it's hardly surprising for the issue to come up here. The most effective way to keep it from coming up here would seem to be for them to start answering their e-mail. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)