Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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 X-Sender: moshier AT moshier DOT ne DOT mediaone DOT net Reply-To: moshier AT mediaone DOT net To: Christopher Faylor cc: cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com, "John C. Bowman" Subject: Re: long double support in cygwin In-Reply-To: <20001111232756.A26752@redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > > 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