Date:	Sat, 4 Mar 2000 20:44:09 +1300
From:	Bill Currie <bill AT taniwha DOT org>
To:	Frank Heckenbach <frank AT g-n-u DOT de>
Cc:	jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org, pavenis AT lanet DOT lv, peter AT gerwinski DOT de,
	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Bill Currie's `serio' module: License and bugs
Message-ID:	<20000304204409.A30994@taniwha.org>
References:	<6B9790CF DOT 20000304031912 DOT FOO-2844 DOT frank AT g-n-u DOT de>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Mutt 1.0.1i
In-Reply-To:	<6B9790CF.20000304031912.FOO-2844.frank@g-n-u.de>; from frank@g-n-u.de on Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 03:19:12AM +0100
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 03:19:12AM +0100, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
> 
> In the DJGPP FAQ, version 2.11, I found 3 different (and probably
> wrong) addresses for you which made it hard for us to contact you
> directly. Unless this has already been fixed in a newer version, I
> suggest to do so...

I did inform Eli when I got my domain and he said he'd updated the faq, but I don't know what version that's for.

> > This is ok by me. I prefer GPL these days, but when I released
> > bcserio, I was undecided, so it's almost public domain. I also did
> > not understand that releasing something without a license means
> > `all rights reseverd'. This was not the intention. So long as any
> > changes to bcserio continue to be shared, use it as you wish.
> 
> The LGPL guarantees that any changes to bcserio will have to be
> shared, and it makes it possible to use it in GPLed and non-GPLed
> projects as Peter needs to.

That's as I suspected, but I didn't want to say it was LGPL until I found out the implications.

> Another license that would be fine for us is GPL with the following
> exception. That's what libc uses, and what we use for most of GPC's
> units.

I prefer not to have exceptions. They can complicate the issue. I'll have to go through the bit work before it's official (and make a new announcement), but I'll go with LGPL as it should suit everybodies needs.

> You mean the linker script? Well, as I said, my method requires no
> special linker script at all, so unless there's a problem with my
> method that I don't know of, I'd prefer this.

That's up to you. I don't think there's any real problem, I just thought the other way was more natural, especially as gcc allows you to control the section in which C functions and variables are placed. Admittedly, it still requires a little `magic'.
 
> I've got no big ambitions to beat you. ;-) Since it's your code and
> you know it better than I do, I think it's better if you merge my
> patch (which shouldn't be difficult, I hope).

lol. It's been so long it's almost guaranteed you know the code better than I do :). Ok, I can still see the big picture in my head, but it would take me a while to re-aquaint myself with the low-level details (let alone the assembly:).

I haven't had a chance to look at the patch yet, but I will.

Bill
-- 
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak

- Raw text -