This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Libiberty license roundup (questions/potential problems)


On Friday, May 23, 2003, at 03:59 PM, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Looking at libiberty, it seems to be under a mass of different licences.

Yup.


There are several problems here. The first are the (non-autogenerated) files
with no explicit copyright notice or licence. I would assume that they were
under the terms of the "rest of libiberty", except that it's not clear
what that is.

Someone would need to go back to the Cygnus devo tree and find out who and when they were checked in originally, and what files around that time the person was checking in and what status those files had. Steve checked in some of the files, and wrote some, quite a bit of those were PD. He also lifted some from BSD land.


In general, we should split the source internally into two, those that are BSD/PD/GPL with libgcc exception, and another directory with LGPL/GPL code. I think that we should have two libraries, one for each of these directory hierarchies.

Clarifying the result of this research into explicit terms in the files I think would be good.

Clarifying that the files are part of libiberty I think would be good.

* No license, University of California copyright
  xatexit.c

I think this is supposed to be under a BSD style copyright.


* No license, FSF copyright
  vfprintf.c

This was written by us for us. I think it should be GPL with exception.



Another way to clean it up, would be to check FreeBSD/NetBSD for corresponding versions of the routines, and replace the one in libiberty.



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]