From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25079 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2004 01:26:52 -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 25049 invoked from network); 24 Nov 2004 01:26:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out3.apple.com) (17.254.13.22) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 24 Nov 2004 01:26:48 -0000 Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (a17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out3.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iAO1X7f8017494; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:33:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay3.apple.com (relay3.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.14) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:27:33 -0800 Received: from [17.201.20.87] (mrs2.apple.com [17.201.20.87]) by relay3.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iAO1QU8f016582; Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:26:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <200411230916.36569.lucini@phys.ethz.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v679) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: Biagio Lucini , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gomp@nongnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Mike Stump Subject: Re: OpenMP licensing problem: a solution Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:20:00 -0000 To: Daniel Berlin X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00874.txt.bz2 On Nov 23, 2004, at 4:47 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Mike Stump wrote: > In this case, what you've said isn't necessarily or even usually true. I wasn't giving general advice of what we might be able to get away with or what the law might allow for, but rather, a very conservative view that hopefully doesn't fail to be conservative to keep us and them happy. In my opinion, if one wants to do fun things with the law, one needs to be the FSF lawyer; we can only do what is trivially obvious. To me that would be, reimplementation of any part that might be protected by copyright, or assignment; beyond that, and I think we need to involve the SC or rms or the FSF lawyer.