> Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | As far as I understand we (GCC) have to develop our own codes
> | independently of glibc unless RMS agrees to have copies/forks of
> | glibc code in GCC (this includes license changes to GPL + libgcc exception
> | like in this case). What is fin
Richard Guenther wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Following RMS request of removing source copies of other projects I
> asked him if he considers it ok to have copies of the generic math
> transcendentals routines of glibc in libgcc-math and to distribute
> them under GPL + libgcc exception clause license. He de
Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| As far as I understand we (GCC) have to develop our own codes
| independently of glibc unless RMS agrees to have copies/forks of
| glibc code in GCC (this includes license changes to GPL + libgcc exception
| like in this case). What is fine a
On Wed, 17 May 2006, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Hi,
> |
> | Following RMS request of removing source copies of other projects I
> | asked him if he considers it ok to have copies of the generic math
> | transcendentals routines of glibc in libgcc
Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hi,
|
| Following RMS request of removing source copies of other projects I
| asked him if he considers it ok to have copies of the generic math
| transcendentals routines of glibc in libgcc-math and to distribute
| them under GPL + libgcc exception
Hi,
Following RMS request of removing source copies of other projects I
asked him if he considers it ok to have copies of the generic math
transcendentals routines of glibc in libgcc-math and to distribute
them under GPL + libgcc exception clause license. He denied that
request and so, after doin
