On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 07:38:23PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: >Charles Wilson wrote: > >>I've tested Egor's patch and it seems to work just fine, as demonstrated >>by the two test cases he posted last week, AND as demonstrated by the >>test case posted to the binutils list some months ago (it tested >>pseudo-reloc behavior in the child after a fork). >> >>I've also tested Egor's runtime reloc support with Ralf's binutils "use >>the DLL as the import lib" and it ALSO works fine in all three cases. >> >>I'm going to continue using ld.exe-ralf and >>cygwin1.dll-egor/libcygwin.a-egor for my day-to-day use, just to see if >>something wacky crops up... >[snip] >>On balance, I agree that #1 is the best option. Unless I run afoul of >>some unforseen wackiness in the next few days, recommend inclusion as is >>(in the most recent iteration, e.g. no cygwin.sc changes) > >So far, no problems. I'm gonna go on record in favor of this patch, in >its 4th incarnation >(http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2002-q4/msg00222.html). > >given that winsup/cygwin/lib/getopt.c(*) still retains its BSD licensing >and comments, there's no reason to change the (non-)license/public >domain attribution in egor's pseudo-relocs.c file. Egor's patch #4 >should be able to be committed as-is.
You know, I don't recall asking for legal opinions. There is absolutely no reason why I should trust the legal analysis of anyone who is not a lawyer. If public domain of Berkeley licensing was a huge win, then I really wouldn't be asking anyone to fill out cygwin assignments, would I? >(*) winsup/cygwin/lib/getopt.c still retains the original >BSD-with-advert license which is explicitly incompatible with the GPL. >And since it is the NetBSD variant, it doesn't fall under the >"rescinded" announcement made by the Berkeley folks: Yes, and perhaps you noticed this when I mentioned it in the mingw-dvlpr mailing list or perhaps not. Regardless, I don't need an education of what kind of licenses are in cygwin. I'm well aware of what's there. >ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change > >(the NetBSD folks are quite clear that they LIKE the advertisement >clause in their license) > >However, the FreeBSD folks DO abide by the "rescind clause 3" decision; >perhaps we should replace our (modified) getopt.c with a similarly >modified one from FreeBSD? There's a conspicuous lack of an IANAL here. Odd. cgf
