From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14974 invoked by alias); 24 Feb 2010 15:53:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 14956 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Feb 2010 15:53:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:53:24 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1OFrNBf030621 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:53:23 -0500 Received: from [10.11.9.92] (vpn-9-92.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.9.92]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1OFrMRW027319 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:53:22 -0500 Message-ID: <4B854B72.9050701@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:53:00 -0000 From: Anthony Green User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091209 Fedora/3.0-4.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: libffi-discuss@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] port libffi to x86/msvc References: <1731533990.154402.1266964424836.JavaMail.root@cm-mail03.mozilla.org> In-Reply-To: <1731533990.154402.1266964424836.JavaMail.root@cm-mail03.mozilla.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact libffi-discuss-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libffi-discuss-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010/txt/msg00039.txt.bz2 On 02/23/2010 05:33 PM, Dan Witte wrote: > ----- "Mladen Turk" wrote: > > >> > Secondly, I put cc.sh under a Mozilla tri-license, because, well, >> that's what we use 'round here, and Timothy said any license is fine. >> But if you'd prefer it under a BSD license for consistency, I don't >> mind. >> > >> >> Shouldn't that match the LICENSE file? >> IMHO mixing licenses in the same package might be confusing. >> > I'm fine with that, feel free to relicense. :) > > Dan. > Thanks Dan - I'll make the change. AG