Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Richard Guenther wrote: | | > Remembering the patches from Joseph these were from a different part | > of GLIBC than I imported. I imported parts of sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32 and | > dbl-64 which contain C implementations of C99 math intrinsics such as | > sin and cos. The flt-32 parts are public domain as in | > | > /* | > * ==================================================== | > * Copyright (C) 1993 by Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved. | > * | > * Developed at SunPro, a Sun Microsystems, Inc. business. | > * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this | > * software is freely granted, provided that this notice | > * is preserved. | > * ==================================================== | > */ | > | > while the dbl-64 parts are LGPL and so subject to the change to GPL | > + exception. I don't know if these parts of GLIBC are covered by RMS's | > permission, it is probably advisable to ask. | | I think that we need to ask RMS specifically about this. Would you | please send a message to RMS, and copy the SC list (is that address | public? I'm not sure if I'm supposed to give it out, ask me privately | if you don't know it) on the mail. Explain the situation, including | what code you're importing and why you want an exception. | | My guess is that it's OK to include the Sun code, since it's in the | public domain. My guess is also that, without explicit permission from | RMS, you have to leave the LGPL on the dbl-64 code, since it doesn't | sound like that is covered by "software floating-point emulation". That | means that people who linked with this library would find that the LGPL | applies, which is contrary to our general policy that binaries produced | by GCC are not subject to GPL/LGPL issues. So, I think you should | remove the dbl-64 code until this is resolved, or at least prevent it | from being compiled by removing whatever Makefile bits compile it. My | experience is that it usually takes some time for RMS to grant a license | exception, and that he may not choose to do it.
That even further clarify the issue for me. I believe, without the change of license, libgcc-math wouold not be as useful (to libstdc++-v3) as I understood it the previous place :-( -- Gaby
