Måns_Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Inside the kernel stdio is meaningless, so I'd hardly expect to find
> that header there. The only places in the kernel source where
> stdio.h is included are in tools, such as kconfig, only to be used
> for building the kernel or for testing purposes. T
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns_Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:56:27 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Måns_Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:56:27 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote:
> >>
> >> > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 12:31:13 -0400
Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 08:39:10AM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > No. The kernel is completely self-contained. Some code may of course
> > have been borrowed from glibc at some point, but that's irrelevant.
>
> Borrowed code *is* relevant, because you
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 08:39:10AM +0100, Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:56:27 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote:
> >>
> >> > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:56:27 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote:
>>
>> > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 12:31:13 -0400 Anthony Towns wrote:
>> > >
>> > > [...]
>> > > > Note
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:56:27 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote:
>
> > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 12:31:13 -0400 Anthony Towns wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > > Note that _if_ we do stick to the view we've taken up un
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you forgot to preface this with the disclaimers "I am not a lawyer",
[...]
Some of those disclaimers, plus "I am not a lawyer qualification authority"
seemed to be missing from yours too.
Or maybe "He Is Not A *" posts should be banned from this
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:56:27 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 12:31:13 -0400 Anthony Towns wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > Note that _if_ we do stick to the view we've taken up until now,
> > > when we have a LGPLv3 only glibc in the a
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 12:31:13 -0400 Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> [...]
> > Note that _if_ we do stick to the view we've taken up until now, when
> > we have a LGPLv3 only glibc in the archive, we'll no longer be able to
> > distribute GPLv2-only compiled execu
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Langasek
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
The whole point behind LGPL is that the LGPL library must be
independently distributable, and independently upgradeable. If your
program is GPL (any version), then it is compatible with any LGPL
library (any version).
I t
On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 10:20:29PM +0100, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michelle Konzack
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >I have coded some programs which are explicit under GPL v2 since I do
> >not like v3 (I have my reasons) but I am using a LIB which is currently
>
Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
If your GPLv2 program links to an LGPLv3 library, then you don't need to
give a monkeys.
The whole point behind LGPL is that the LGPL library must be
independently distributable, and independently upgradeable. If your
program is GPL (any version), then it is compati
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michelle Konzack
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
I have coded some programs which are explicit under GPL v2 since I do
not like v3 (I have my reasons) but I am using a LIB which is currently
under LGPL v2.
Now the new version of this LIB is v3.
What should I do?
DON
# ATTENTION: I am currently NOT in Strasbourg because#
# haveing the last 4 weeks of my military #
# service and can not reply in short delays. #
###
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 07:52:03PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 12:31:13 -0400 Anthony Towns wrote:
> [...]
> > Note that _if_ we do stick to the view we've taken up until now, when
> > we have a LGPLv3 only glibc in the archive, we'll no longer be able to
> > distribute GPLv2-
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 12:31:13 -0400 Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
> Note that _if_ we do stick to the view we've taken up until now, when
> we have a LGPLv3 only glibc in the archive, we'll no longer be able to
> distribute GPLv2-only compiled executables.
Unless the GPLv2-only work copyright holder(s
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 04:38:56PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 13:58:08 +0200 Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > LGPLv3 libraries
> > could not be used in GPLv2-only programs.
> I'm afraid that this incompatibility is still true.
> AFAIUI, when you redistribute a GPLv2-only program in
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 13:58:08 +0200 Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
> LGPLv3 libraries
> could not be used in GPLv2-only programs.
I'm afraid that this incompatibility is still true.
AFAIUI, when you redistribute a GPLv2-only program in compiled form, the
GPLv2 insists that the libraries the program
Hello,
does the compat matrix for draft3 http://gplv3.fsf.org/dd3-faq still
apply to the released version of LGPLv3?
If it does it could cause quite some pain, since LGPLv3 libraries
could not be used in GPLv2-only programs.
cu andreas
--
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His oth
20 matches
Mail list logo
