Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Sun, 12 Nov 2000 09:28:14 -0500 (EST)
From:	Stephen L Moshier <moshier AT mediaone DOT net>
X-Sender:	moshier AT moshier DOT ne DOT mediaone DOT net
Reply-To:	moshier AT mediaone DOT net
To:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
cc:	cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com, "John C. Bowman" <bowman AT math DOT ualberta DOT ca>
Subject:	Re: long double support in cygwin
In-Reply-To:	<20001111232756.A26752@redhat.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.4.20.0011120859210.2531-100000@moshier.ne.mediaone.net>
MIME-Version:	1.0

> >   Why aren't you using any of these six
> >or seven codes that various people have indeed implemented?
> >What is the policy?
>
> We can't use glibc based code.
> There are licensing considerations which prevent us from taking code
> from LGPLed sources

Fascinating.
Well, the code I could supply that is not glibc was formally placed
in the public domain so that the FSF could adopt it and install it into gcc.
The gcc changes are owned by FSF but I would guess what was in
the public domain is still in the public domain.  Does that sound
like something that would satisfy the legal requirement?


>  That is undoubtedly why no one suggested folding his
> changes back into newlib.

I wonder if Bowman, the author of inline-math, knew that the LGPL
would *prevent* people from using his code!  It should be up to
him to decide whether you have permission.


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com

- Raw text -