On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 07:44:35PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> > As I understand it, the only difference in the bumped version number
> > is the address. Can anyone confirm this?
>
> A simple diff shows other changes, including the all-new shared
> library clause and the change of "Library" to
> As I understand it, the only difference in the bumped version number
> is the address. Can anyone confirm this?
A simple diff shows other changes, including the all-new shared
library clause and the change of "Library" to "Lesser" in the name.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:43:18PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > The FSF already asked GNU projects to correct the address.
>
> Correcting the address, yes. Changing to a different version of the
> LGPL though? Did they specifically say "Any sources using an old
> version of the LGPL should upgra
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 09:56:19PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> >
> > > The src directory currently is version 2.0 instead of 2.1 for
> > > COPYING.LIB. Should the license file be upgraded on src?
> >
> > Changing licensing terms is usually a question for the FSF, not the
> > maintainers.
>
>
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 09:56:19PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> > The src directory currently is version 2.0 instead of 2.1 for
> > COPYING.LIB. Should the license file be upgraded on src?
>
> Changing licensing terms is usually a question for the FSF, not the
> maintainers.
The FSF already as
> The src directory currently is version 2.0 instead of 2.1 for
> COPYING.LIB. Should the license file be upgraded on src?
Changing licensing terms is usually a question for the FSF, not the
maintainers.
Plus, you should at least bring this up on the binutils/gdb/newlib
lists ;-)
I committed this as obvious to gcc to get the new FSF address. The rest
are whitespace changes.
The src directory currently is version 2.0 instead of 2.1 for
COPYING.LIB. Should the license file be upgraded on src?
2005-07-14 Kelley Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* COPYING.LIB: Update fr
