This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC 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]

Re: [PATCH] DFP internal support for FP exceptions


On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 01:58:33PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Janis Johnson wrote:
> >One big question: originally I put a GPL license into new files
> >decExcept.[ch] but this time used GPL+exception.  Is it valid to do
> >that after a file has been submitted but before it's been checked in?
> 
> If you own the file, you can submit it for consideration with the GPL
> +exception license.  If others might have any ownership say in it,
> you'd have to get the approval of all authors.  So, if you stole GPL
> code from glibc, you'd need the FSF to sign off on the change.  If
> you worked on it with RedHat, you'd need RedHat to sign off.  If
> someone contributed substantial (anything for which a copyright claim
> might be reasonable) bits, you need them to approve the change.

In this case the files were written only by me.  They've never been
checked in anywhere, but had the wrong license in the original patch
submission.
 
> I'm hoping that no runtime approver would approve the wrong license
> going into the runtime libraries as once that is done, and checked in
> and other people contribute to it, then we most likely have to ask
> rms to change the license.  Better all the way around to get it right
> the first time.  If ever in doubt, don't check it in, ask the SC for
> guidance.

Unfortunately I'm very much aware of that; see PR 28002 (decNumber
sources need GPL+exception for use in libgcc).

Janis


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]