From owner-cvs-user Mon Mar 13 17:46:12 1995 Return-Path: cvs-user-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id RAA04864 for cvs-user-outgoing; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 17:46:12 -0800 Received: from ref.tfs.com (ref.tfs.com [140.145.254.251]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id RAA04858; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 17:46:10 -0800 Received: (from phk@localhost) by ref.tfs.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id RAA01496; Mon, 13 Mar 1995 17:45:56 -0800 From: Poul-Henning Kamp Message-Id: <199503140145.RAA01496@ref.tfs.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/release/compat20 libgcc.so.261.0.uu To: nate@trout.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 17:45:55 -0800 (PST) Cc: rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com, phk@freefall.cdrom.com, CVS-commiters@freefall.cdrom.com, cvs-user@freefall.cdrom.com In-Reply-To: <199503140146.SAA04268@trout.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Mar 13, 95 06:46:07 pm Content-Type: text Content-Length: 966 Sender: cvs-user-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > > > > This is the shared version of the libgcc which we will need for 2.0 stuff > > > > to run on 2.1. > > > > > > sources and you are not providing the sources to build this binary. > > > > > > More specifically you are violating section 3 of the GPL by doing this :-(. > > > > We DO provide the sources. src/gnu/usr.bin/cc/libgcc. > > But the source code in there is not the same as the source code that > built the shlib, so we are still in violation. If we want to be truly > safe, we also need to provide the patch that brings the new sources back > to the old source state. (And people wonder why I think the GPL is a > pain in the butt!) I doubt the GNU people would be that anal retentive, since we already published the sources for the 2.0-RELEASE on the net... -- Poul-Henning Kamp -- TRW Financial Systems, Inc. 'All relevant people are pertinent' && 'All rude people are impertinent' => 'no rude people are relevant'