> From: Ozkan Sezer
> Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:09:19 +0300
> Cc: Alexandre Oliva , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>
> On 9/28/16, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> From: Alexandre Oliva
> >> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> >> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:03:02 -0300
> >>
> >> Does that work for everyone involved?
On 9/28/16, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Alexandre Oliva
>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:03:02 -0300
>>
>> Does that work for everyone involved?
>
> Except that no one will reimburse me for the time I wasted talking to
> several people, with eventually null result...
> From: Alexandre Oliva
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:03:02 -0300
>
> Does that work for everyone involved?
Except that no one will reimburse me for the time I wasted talking to
several people, with eventually null result...
On 9/28/16, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Sep 27, 2016, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>
>> FYI: What I originally wanted was an authorization _for me_ to use
>> filenames.h in LGPL projects with LGPL license notice; the version
>> I use is modified (not refer to any external code other than libc,
>> i.e. only
On Sep 27, 2016, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
> FYI: What I originally wanted was an authorization _for me_ to use
> filenames.h in LGPL projects with LGPL license notice; the version
> I use is modified (not refer to any external code other than libc,
> i.e. only macros and inlines) and doesn't include ha
Florian Weimer writes:
> Sorry, I don't understand. Surely anything released under the LGPL by
> the FSF can be upgraded to the current GPLv3? First upgrade to the
> latest LGPL, then switch over to the GPLv3?
>
> (I assume that the FSF releases their works under the “any later
> version” regime
> From: Florian Weimer
> Cc: DJ Delorie , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, seze...@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:43:53 +0200
>
> * Eli Zaretskii:
>
> > If my arithmetics is correct, about 70% of its files is LGPL, the
> > rest GPL. Which doesn't keep many GNU projects under GPL from using
> >
> Sorry, I don't understand. Surely anything released under the LGPL by
> the FSF can be upgraded to the current GPLv3? First upgrade to the
> latest LGPL, then switch over to the GPLv3?
That seems correct to me.
* Eli Zaretskii:
> If my arithmetics is correct, about 70% of its files is LGPL, the
> rest GPL. Which doesn't keep many GNU projects under GPL from using
> Gnulib.
Sorry, I don't understand. Surely anything released under the LGPL by
the FSF can be upgraded to the current GPLv3? First upgrade
> From: DJ Delorie
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, e...@gnu.org, f...@deneb.enyo.de
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:45:28 -0400
>
>
> I wonder if us relicensing our modified copy would apply to your old
> copy. I mean, are we sure RMS knows you're also relicensing an old
> copy, and that the current
> From: DJ Delorie
> Cc: f...@deneb.enyo.de, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, seze...@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:23:46 -0400
>
> > Why would it need to
> > change? It's perfectly okay to link GPL code with LGPL code, we do
> > this all the time with libgcc, no? Or am I missing something?
>
Ozkan Sezer writes:
> I am not using filename_cmp.c, nor do I include hashtab.h. The version
> I took was an old one with macros only and I added some more macros and
> inlines to it. (I replied to these, but I forgot including the CC list,
> here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg02
On 9/27/16, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: DJ Delorie
>> Cc: f...@deneb.enyo.de, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, seze...@gmail.com
>> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:23:46 -0400
>>
>> Eli Zaretskii writes:
>> >> But then the implementation would need relicensing as well, wouldn't
>> >> it?
>> >
>> > Which imp
> From: DJ Delorie
> Cc: f...@deneb.enyo.de, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, seze...@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:23:46 -0400
>
> Eli Zaretskii writes:
> >> But then the implementation would need relicensing as well, wouldn't
> >> it?
> >
> > Which implementation? of Ozkan's library?
>
> libi
Eli Zaretskii writes:
>> But then the implementation would need relicensing as well, wouldn't
>> it?
>
> Which implementation? of Ozkan's library?
libiberty's filename_cmp.c is GPL and implements two of the functions in
filenames.h; if those are why he's using it, then it's still GPL unless
filen
> From: DJ Delorie
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, seze...@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:00:46 -0400
>
>
> Eli Zaretskii writes:
> > Because Ozkan wants to use it in an otherwise LGPL package.
>
> Ok, but that doesn't say why it's different. That reason could apply to
> any header in t
> From: Florian Weimer
> Cc: DJ Delorie , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, seze...@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:54:59 +0200
>
> >> Most of the files in include/ are GPL, not LGPL. Why is this one
> >> different?
> >
> > Because Ozkan wants to use it in an otherwise LGPL package.
>
> But then
On 9/27/16, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> Eli Zaretskii writes:
>> Because Ozkan wants to use it in an otherwise LGPL package.
>
> Ok, but that doesn't say why it's different. That reason could apply to
> any header in there. Do we need to convert all headers there to LGPL?
> Is this "otherwise LGPL pa
Eli Zaretskii writes:
> Because Ozkan wants to use it in an otherwise LGPL package.
Ok, but that doesn't say why it's different. That reason could apply to
any header in there. Do we need to convert all headers there to LGPL?
Is this "otherwise LGPL package" in one of our repos, or elsewhere?
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, seze...@gmail.com
> From: Jeff Law
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:36:11 -0600
>
> On 09/27/2016 11:52 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> >
> > Most of the files in include/ are GPL, not LGPL. Why is this one
> > different?
> Right. ANd it's not like this file inserts anything o
* Eli Zaretskii:
>> From: DJ Delorie
>> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, seze...@gmail.com
>> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 13:52:10 -0400
>>
>>
>> Most of the files in include/ are GPL, not LGPL. Why is this one
>> different?
>
> Because Ozkan wants to use it in an otherwise LGPL package.
But then the
> From: DJ Delorie
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, seze...@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 13:52:10 -0400
>
>
> Most of the files in include/ are GPL, not LGPL. Why is this one
> different?
Because Ozkan wants to use it in an otherwise LGPL package.
On 09/27/2016 11:52 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
Most of the files in include/ are GPL, not LGPL. Why is this one
different?
Right. ANd it's not like this file inserts anything of significance
into the resulting object code. I'd really like to see more rationale
behind the request for a license ch
Most of the files in include/ are GPL, not LGPL. Why is this one
different?
Hi,
I was asked by Ozkan Sezer (CC'ed) whether I'd agree to relicense
include/filenames.h under LGPL2+ instead of GPL2+.
I talked to Richard Stallman (in private email), and he authorized the
change. So now I'm proposing the corresponding change to you.
Thanks.
P.S. Please CC me on any respon
25 matches
Mail list logo
