On Sun, 1 Jun 1997, Galen Hazelwood wrote:
> Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > On 1 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote: > > > > > > I believe libc5.so is LGPL... > > > > > > I don't. /usr/doc/libc5//copyright doesn't *mention* the LGPL *at > > > all*, though the libc6 one mentions both. > > > > Yep, the copyright file does not mention the LGPL at all. This seems to me > > to be very limiting of commercial software running on linux. > > I believe that regardless of what our copyright file says, glibc 1.0 > (libc5) and 2.0 (libc6) are both LGPL--at least the library parts. > Other programs grouped with the libc package are probably GPL. Ack! I must be blind, I looked right at this file right before posting too, from stdio.h: This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. Right there, 2nd line 'GNU Library General'. /usr/doc/copyright/libc5 says GPL not LGPL. Sounds like a bug in the libc5 package!! Jason -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
