On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 08:44:38PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: >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 or >wouldn't be asking anyone to fill out cygwin assignments, would I?
cgf
