This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz at gmail dot com>
- Cc: aoliva at redhat dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 05:40:37 +0300
- Subject: Re: Change license of filenames.h to LGPL
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <83lgydb2fr.fsf@gnu.org> <xnponprwv5.fsf@greed.delorie.com> <CAA2C=vC3GNvuSsG15Gq7dHy+FowMccwJBaJaAhpzWfKATX0u=Q@mail.gmail.com> <ora8erj195.fsf@livre.home> <83r383ok0p.fsf@gnu.org> <CAA2C=vAwDE8BcLEV6UCSq+urnQy8zedPkAH_Py7ccLKnO9m7PQ@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> From: Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:09:19 +0300
> Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>
> On 9/28/16, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> >> From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>
> >> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> >> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 16:03:02 -0300
> >>
> >> Does that work for everyone involved?
> >
> > Except that no one will reimburse me for the time I wasted talking to
> > several people, with eventually null result...
> >
>
> FWIW, you have my thanks for at least helping my case.
It's worth a lot to me, and you are welcome.
I just hoped to actually do what you requested, not just talk about
it. Now I'm in a situation where, after being authorized to make the
change by whom I consider the legal custodian of that file's license,
I face people who, while not being opposed to the change, don't
actually want to do that. That doesn't sound right to me.