Re: [libmudflap] splay tree forking

[fche at redhat dot com (Frank Ch. Eigler)]

ian wrote:

> [...]  The new copy of splay-tree.c is clearly a derived work of the
> original copy of splay-tree.c.  [...]

By the way, the fact that this is a modified copy does not really
matter to this issue.  If the unmodified libiberty splay-tree code
were used via build-tree symlinking, it would still be a "violation".
splay-trees might not be usable in gpl+exception target libraries at
all.  Some more pedantic analysis might even preclude all other
libiberty pieces from similar use elsewhere.

Do people believe this is intentional?  (I sent a query to two SC
members for a clarification.)

- FChE