This is the mail archive of the fortran@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 2010-09-06 19:13, Toon Moene wrote:
The problem I currently have is that it is hard to *prove* that fdlibm and gdtoa are distributed under the BSD license (and exactly which one) - I cannot find a document that contains the exact license text.
from a random fdlibm file: /* * ==================================================== * Copyright (C) 2004 by Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved. * * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this * software is freely granted, provided that this notice * is preserved. * ==================================================== */
Is that not sufficient? Likewise you can find the two-clause BSD licence of gdtoa in the source files you linked to. As for Cephes, that's not owned by the FSF, but it's used in glibc IIUC. I've not dug deeper, but given that it's on netlib, you will find the licence in the source code.
I think the real problem, as far as the FSF is concerned, is: what licence shall we put the parts of the library that we (i.e. FX) wrote ourselves? GPL + exception, probably, as the FSF always wants the strongest licence that fits the purpose. But this infers the question: if Cephes was modified in glibc, can we import the changes and relicence under GPL + e?
-- Toon Moene - e-mail: toon@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290 Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands At home: http://moene.org/~toon/; weather: http://moene.org/~hirlam/ Progress of GNU Fortran: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortran#news
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |