Svante Signell, le Tue 20 Jul 2010 10:51:50 +0200, a écrit :
> same as GNU/Linux even if it is a GNU project. This means that Linux
> code could in theory be used if the copyright holders of the Linux code
> agrees to transfer copyrights to GNU for the relevant parts.
No need to care about license
Hi,
Svante Signell writes:
> According to my findings Hurd is licensed as GPL v2 only
No, it’s GPLv2+, as can be seen from the source file headers.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
Hi,
This mail is based on the recent bug-hurd thread of missing features of
Hurd: USB, SATA, sound, wireless, modern processors, etc. This question
comes up every time somebody mention the usability of Hurd (except the
inherent slowness)
According to my findings Hurd is licensed as GPL v2 only
h
Hello!
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:18:52AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 19/07/10 23:06, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> >> * What's the reason for having a libmachuser / libhurduser be part of
> >>glibc?
> >>
> >>Is it for Roland's convenience, or is there a technical reason?
On 19/07/10 23:06, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>> * What's the reason for having a libmachuser / libhurduser be part of
>>glibc?
>>
>>Is it for Roland's convenience, or is there a technical reason? Can
>>we move it out of the glibc build process?
>>
>
> Given the need for the librar
