On 2004-04-22 01:26:20 +0100 Anibal Monsalve Salazar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 10:20:55AM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
AFAI can see elfutils is doubly licenced under GPL and/or OSL:
Could someone shed some light on the license issues related to bug
#239518?
elfutils went after
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=221761
I am rather irritated by the incomplete quoting of elfutils sources
which trimmed key facts like:
* Wed Jan 7 2004 Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0.91-1
- include only libelf under GPL plus wrapper scripts
or the copyright headers in the source files everywhere proclaiming
that they are OSL-covered files. If you read through the %if %{gpl}
sections of the spec in the upstream sources, I think you may find
that you can build libelf to use binutils. I hope that's some use to
you.
However, much of elfutils is still OSL and still non-free.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
