This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: Licensing inconsistency, cplus-dem.c/cp-demangle.c/demangle.h


> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:58:55 -0800
> From: Per Bothner <per@bothner.com>

> Zack Weinberg wrote:

> > cplus-dem.c is licensed under the LGPL; cp-demangle.c and demangle.h
> > have the plain GPL.  Normal use will need all three files, so they
> > should all be licensed the same way.
> > 
> > Is there a consensus on which license these files should use?  I'd
> > vote for LGPL, myself; there is no reason I see to restrict the use of
> > the demanglers in proprietary software.

> It may be desirable to use GPL+exception, to demangle GCJ stack-traces.
> Currently, we filter stack traces through a forked c++filt, because
> of the license.  On the other hand, there has been talk that it would
> be better anyway (though more work) to use the dwarf2 eh-unwinding code.

> But at least in the short term, it would be better to be able to
> link the demangler directly in to libgcj, without license contamination.

I agree.  In the past we've talked about providing the demangler to
C++ programs, so that they can get at the name as the user would see
it for things that only have the mangled form now.  This can be used
for the typeinfo stuff, the dynamic symbol tables and such.

My vote would be for libgcc style (or GPL + exception as others might say).

So, who gets to decide the change in license?  SC?  rms?  If rms,
someone want to volunteer?  If no one, I would be willing.


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