Re: Libiberty's snprintf for v3?

["Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>]

 > From: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
 > 
 > 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.

Ok, fair enough.  Though I'd rather someone familiar with the code write
up the rationale and benefits.  E.g. would be be able to plug any
buffer overruns, etc?  If someone lights the torch, I'll carry it.

 > > 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.

Awww, it was so much more fun to write new code... :-)

--
Kaveh R. Ghazi			ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu