This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Libiberty license roundup (questions/potential problems)
- From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- To: neroden at twcny dot rr dot com
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 10:07:11 -0400
- Subject: Re: Libiberty license roundup (questions/potential problems)
- References: <20030524035710.GA30580@doctormoo>
> >The reason is, only the original author can change the copyright terms.
>
> Ah, but this part isn't really part of the copyright terms!
Changing the package that a file belongs to changes the type of
copyright assignment you need to have in order to edit that file.
> I'm most worried about the one which doesn't technically have a
> license for itself ("This file is part of libiberty. GCC is free
> software...") and I'm hoping to avoid this kind of mishmash in the
> future.
Those still have authors and copyrights, though.
> Ah, so libiberty is always statically linked, and only individual .o
> files are linked with any particular program, so source files under
> different licenses aren't unmanagably comingled? We should add a note
> somewhere to the effect that it has to remain this way. :-)
No, not at all. Parts are linked into libstdc++.so. Parts are linked
into libbfd.so. That's why we have such a mess; some files have had
license changes in order to be able to do that, but others haven't.