Libiberty license roundup (questions/potential problems)

[DJ Delorie]

> >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.