On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Joe Buck wrote:
> How about just convincing the polylib people to change their license
> to GPL2||GPL3 and be done with this?
Yes, that would not only solve this issue but also avoid needing to deal
with the C++ issues (such as arranging to link with static libstdc++ on
all
* Joe Buck wrote on Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 06:36:31PM CEST:
>
> Back when the UWIN issue came up, the decision RMS and the SC worked out
> about where to set the line was as Joseph states: we don't want the
> ordinary process of configuring and building GCC from FSF sources to
> produce an undistrib
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about just convincing the polylib people to change their license
> to GPL2||GPL3 and be done with this?
As mentioned in the original message, this process has already started:
it is a matter of a few months (hope not years)
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 05:24:12PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Daniel Berlin wrote on 04 August 2008 17:07:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Joseph S. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >>
> >>> * Joseph S. Myers wrote on Sun, Aug 03, 2008 a
Joseph S. Myers wrote on Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 10:00:38PM CEST:
> >> > (But the configure code also
> >> > shouldn't allow configuring with a GPLv2 version of polylib.)
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >> Why? Use is not forbidden by incompatible free software licenses here,
> >> only
Daniel Berlin wrote:
If we are doing that, we really shouldn't be.
One of the very explicit freedoms in the GPL is to be able to build
versions for internal use that are not publicly distributed.
I completely agree that that is an important freedom guaranteed by the
GPL. The GPL requirement
Daniel Berlin wrote on 04 August 2008 17:07:
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Joseph S. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>>
>>> * Joseph S. Myers wrote on Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 10:00:38PM CEST:
(But the configure code also
shouldn't
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Joseph S. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
>> * Joseph S. Myers wrote on Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 10:00:38PM CEST:
>> >
>> > (But the configure code also
>> > shouldn't allow configuring with a GPLv2 version of polylib.)
>>
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Joseph S. Myers wrote on Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 10:00:38PM CEST:
> >
> > (But the configure code also
> > shouldn't allow configuring with a GPLv2 version of polylib.)
>
> Why? Use is not forbidden by incompatible free software licenses here,
> only
* Joseph S. Myers wrote on Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 10:00:38PM CEST:
>
> (But the configure code also
> shouldn't allow configuring with a GPLv2 version of polylib.)
Why? Use is not forbidden by incompatible free software licenses here,
only redistribution is.
Cheers,
Ralf
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm moving this thread to gcc@ mailing list for a wider audience.
This message didn't seem to go to the gcc list.
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I agree with Joseph's comments. Thanks,
> >
> > --
11 matches
Mail list logo
