Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 20:44:09 +1300 From: Bill Currie To: Frank Heckenbach 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 Precedence: bulk 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