This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See crosstool-NG for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Per Arnold Blaasmo wrote: >> Do we need to have the license files in the finished build tree? >> Should crosstool-ng copy those in to the finished tree? >> What about crosstool-ng's license? >> Do we need to add that to the finished built toolchain? >> Do anyone have any thought on this? On 20 Apr 2012, thierry.moreau@connotech.com wrote: > I don' se the point for crossgcc developers/maintainers to delve into > these issues for you. Their time is best used elsewhere. I don't think it is a bad idea for crosstool-ng to copy a licence file(s) to the finished tree. I don't see one for anything but 'ltrace' in my trees in '<tuple>/debug-root/usr/share/doc/ltrace/COPYING'. CT-NG is already putting a compressed build log there. There is no 'choice' of licence. It is GPL/LGPL/GCC and having those files present in the finished tree makes sense doesn't it? I don't think it is a pressing matter, but I wouldn't say that Per Arnold's suggestion was *not* worth any attention. Actually, I am surprised that the GCC, etc build files haven't installed a licence file somewhere... but maybe I missed something in the finished tree. Debian/Ubuntu provide on in /usr/share/doc/gcc-4.4-base/copyright. I guess getting the constituent package licences right for an aggregate license might be an issue; if it is a simple 'cp' how could it not be worth the time? fwiw, Bill Pringlemeir. -- For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |