Mark Mitchell writes:
>> I agree that we are likely to get more traction with a request to dual
>> license as opposed to re-license.
>
> Well, I've asked -- but RMS shot down that idea.
Did he give reasons, and/or indicate any other possible methods to use?
-Miles
--
`Suppose Korea goes to the
Mark Mitchell wrote:
I'm disappointed that a license "improvement" (changing GPL to GFDL on
manuals) has made it impossible to do something that we, as developers,
used to be able to do (when documentation was under the GPL we could
move things back and forth between code and documentation at wi
Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
>> What if we ask the FSF if we can dual license the constraints.md files
>> under both the GPL and the GFDL?
> I agree that we are likely to get more traction with a request to dual
> license as opposed to re-license.
Well, I've asked -- but RMS shot down that idea.
> Not
> What if we ask the FSF if we can dual license the constraints.md files
> under both the GPL and the GFDL?
Thanks for the update Mark.
I agree that we are likely to get more traction with a request to dual
license as opposed to re-license.
Although I confess to lingering doubts as to the big p
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, Revital1 Eres wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Doloop optimization fails to be applied on the following kernel from
> tescase sms-4.c with mainline (-r 162294) due to 'Possible infinite
> iteration
> case' message; taken from the loop2_doloop dump. (please see below).
> With an older
Hello,
Doloop optimization fails to be applied on the following kernel from
tescase sms-4.c with mainline (-r 162294) due to 'Possible infinite
iteration
case' message; taken from the loop2_doloop dump. (please see below).
With an older version of gcc (-r 146278) doloop succeeded to be applied
an
