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 ;-)
