This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Libiberty's snprintf for v3?
- From: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
- To: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- Cc: pcarlini at unitus dot it, dj at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:34:38 -0700
- Subject: Re: Libiberty's snprintf for v3?
- References: <3EA44576.90708@unitus.it> <200304220041.UAA22116@caip.rutgers.edu>
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 08:41:27PM -0400, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> I see two remedies.
>
> 1. Someone (not me, probably Paolo :-) ) needs to write to
> assign at gnu dot org, explain the situation and ask them to change the
> license on vasprintf.c to GPL + special exception. This isn't so
> bad, I've found them to be reasonable and responsive. Then you
> can suck in that file too.
Better to ask RMS directly, cc-ing the SC list; RMS has been cooperative
lately on requests for license changes of this type, and he is the
decision maker. As an SC member, you have more leverage than Paolo,
also it could be argued that by agreeing to be on the SC we've agreed
to fight such battles. In any case, if Paolo asks assign at gnu dot org, they'll
ask RMS, and then RMS will ask the SC list what it's about, so you're
just adding a few weeks to the process.
> 2. Someone (probably me) needs to rewrite [v]snprintf.c to avoid
> using vasprintf.
If we have perfectly good code, it seems that it's better to use the
relicensing approach, unless RMS rejects it.