On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > Interestingly, the attached script pointed out potential license > problems in C6x libgcc files: > > File libgcc/config/c6x/eqd.c contains license(s) LGPL-2.1+ > File libgcc/config/c6x/eqf.c contains license(s) LGPL-2.1+ > File libgcc/config/c6x/ged.c contains license(s) LGPL-2.1+ > File libgcc/config/c6x/gef.c contains license(s) LGPL-2.1+ > File libgcc/config/c6x/gtd.c contains license(s) LGPL-2.1+ > File libgcc/config/c6x/gtf.c contains license(s) LGPL-2.1+ > File libgcc/config/c6x/led.c contains license(s) LGPL-2.1+ > File libgcc/config/c6x/lef.c contains license(s) LGPL-2.1+ > File libgcc/config/c6x/ltd.c contains license(s) LGPL-2.1+ > File libgcc/config/c6x/ltf.c contains license(s) LGPL-2.1+ > File libgcc/config/c6x/sfp-machine.h contains license(s) LGPL-2.1+ > > These should be GPLv3+exception, right?
This is the soft-fp license, LGPL+exception, for files shared between libgcc and glibc (used for soft-fp itself, files such as those based on soft-fp, and longlong.h). -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
