> "Mark" == Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mark> I would prefer it go on savannah, which is more clearly unaffiliated
Mark> with any particular commercial entity.
Ok, I submitted a request there.
Tom
Tom Tromey wrote:
> I am leaning toward putting it into the rhug repository on
> sourceware.org, simply because then we (the gcj hackers) won't have to
> go through some long project registration process. Speak up if you
> have a particular problem with this.
Thanks!
I would prefer it go on sav
> "Mark" == Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mark> The FSF and GCC SC have decided to move fastjar to savannah, and
Mark> stop including it in future GCC releases, which will clarify
Mark> this situation. Will someone please volunteer to migrate
Mark> fastjar out of our repository?
Mark Mitchell wrote:
My guess is that it's OK to include the Sun code, since it's in the
public domain.
This may just be nit-picking, but the above notice doesn't put the code
into the public domain. Sun still owns the copyright of the software.
Actually notices at the start of files have ve
> Joe Buck writes:
Ben> Please specify exactly what you want, and who at the FSF I talk to.
Joe> If you have messages giving past discussions of the issue, all the better.
If you have a message from the FSF approving the current
situation, it would be extremely helpful if you either
Ross Ridge wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>> /*
>> *
>> * Copyright (C) 1993 by Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
>> *
>> * Developed at SunPro, a Sun Microsystems, Inc. business.
>> * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distrib
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 05:09:17PM -0600, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
>
> > As previously stated, if there is contrary information from FSF lawyers,
> > then please gather it and present it to the FSF.
>
> Please specify exactly what you want, and who at the FSF I talk to.
I am not Mark, but I sugges
Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
>> As previously stated, if there is contrary information from FSF lawyers,
>> then please gather it and present it to the FSF.
>
> Please specify exactly what you want, and who at the FSF I talk to.
I don't want anything in particular. I can assure you that my idea of a
g
Richard Guenther wrote:
> /*
> *
> * Copyright (C) 1993 by Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
> *
> * Developed at SunPro, a Sun Microsystems, Inc. business.
> * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this
> * software is
> As previously stated, if there is contrary information from FSF lawyers,
> then please gather it and present it to the FSF.
Please specify exactly what you want, and who at the FSF I talk to.
Please do so on-list.
-benjamin
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 03:05:17PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> >>> The STL files in libstdc++-v3 need to be clearly marked as not part of
> >>> GCC. Benjamin, will you please take care of that, by modifying the
> >>> libstdc++-v3/README to indicate that the files origina
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
The STL files in libstdc++-v3 need to be clearly marked as not part of
GCC. Benjamin, will you please take care of that, by modifying the
libstdc++-v3/README to indicate that the files originally from HP are
not part of GCC, and spe
Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
>>> The STL files in libstdc++-v3 need to be clearly marked as not part of
>>> GCC. Benjamin, will you please take care of that, by modifying the
>>> libstdc++-v3/README to indicate that the files originally from HP are
>>> not part of GCC, and specifically list those files?
> > The STL files in libstdc++-v3 need to be clearly marked as not part of
> > GCC. Benjamin, will you please take care of that, by modifying the
> > libstdc++-v3/README to indicate that the files originally from HP are
> > not part of GCC, and specifically list those files?
Huh? What are you
Richard Guenther wrote:
> I'll try my best. And I take it as granted that I can turn to RMS in the case
> we only get the usual reactions like
> http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2005-07/msg8.html
Yes, I think RMS would like FSF maintainers to behave civilly. He did
explicitly indicate in
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Richard Guenther wrote:
|
| > Remembering the patches from Joseph these were from a different part
| > of GLIBC than I imported. I imported parts of sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32 and
| > dbl-64 which contain C implementations of C99 math intrinsics such as
|
On 17 Mar 2006 23:27:35 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> |
> | > I am confused. My interest in libgcc-math is that it helps solve
> | > thorny issues with libstdc++-v3 and my expectation is that we can ma
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| > I am confused. My interest in libgcc-math is that it helps solve
| > thorny issues with libstdc++-v3 and my expectation is that we can make
| > modification to libgcc-math so that we can't advantage of it. Now, I
| > unde
On 3/17/06, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2006, at 2:07 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > So, I think you should remove the dbl-64 code until this is
> > resolved, or at least prevent it
> > from being compiled by removing whatever Makefile bits compile it
>
> :-( At the outside, I
On 3/17/06, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > Remembering the patches from Joseph these were from a different part
> > of GLIBC than I imported. I imported parts of sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32 and
> > dbl-64 which contain C implementations of C99 math intrinsics s
On Mar 17, 2006, at 2:07 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
So, I think you should remove the dbl-64 code until this is
resolved, or at least prevent it
from being compiled by removing whatever Makefile bits compile it
:-( At the outside, I'd say that in 7 days it should not be in
mainline nor any r
Richard Guenther wrote:
> Remembering the patches from Joseph these were from a different part
> of GLIBC than I imported. I imported parts of sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32 and
> dbl-64 which contain C implementations of C99 math intrinsics such as
> sin and cos. The flt-32 parts are public domain as i
Joe Buck wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 01:23:36PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> Do I understand this correctly that the upstream GLIBC versions of the
>>> files will get their license changed, or will this happen only in the GCC
>>> copy?
>> Only in the GCC copy.
>
Richard Guenther wrote:
> I understand it in the way that we should modify the imported parts
> upstream (or not), while we can for sure add glues and wrappers or
> other thinks to libgcc-math.
Yes, you can add glue/wrappers.
> So this discussion only affects flt-32
> and dbl-64 directories. I
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> I am confused. My interest in libgcc-math is that it helps solve
> thorny issues with libstdc++-v3 and my expectation is that we can make
> modification to libgcc-math so that we can't advantage of it. Now, I
> understand that we cannot make modification to libgcc-math
On 17 Mar 2006 22:44:37 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> | >> Because RMS has approved the use of GLIBC's software floating-point code
> | >> in GCC's runtime libraries, using GPL + exception, the correct thing for
> | >> J
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| >> Because RMS has approved the use of GLIBC's software floating-point code
| >> in GCC's runtime libraries, using GPL + exception, the correct thing for
| >> Joseph Myers to do with his recent patch is to mark those files as not
| >> part of GCC,
On 3/17/06, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On 3/17/06, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Because RMS has approved the use of GLIBC's software floating-point code
> >> in GCC's runtime libraries, using GPL + exception, the correct thing for
> >> Jo
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 01:23:36PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
> > Do I understand this correctly that the upstream GLIBC versions of the
> > files will get their license changed, or will this happen only in the GCC
> > copy?
>
> Only in the GCC copy.
Maybe we should che
Richard Guenther wrote:
> On 3/17/06, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Richard Guenther, would you please add a README to libgcc-math
>> explaining that it that the GLIBC code is not part of GCC, as per the
>> web page above? Also, please document that all of the GLIBC files are
>
> I
On 3/17/06, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Richard Guenther, would you please add a README to libgcc-math
> explaining that it that the GLIBC code is not part of GCC, as per the
> web page above? Also, please document that all of the GLIBC files are
I will do so.
> not to be changed,
There has recently been extensive discussion on the GCC Steering
Committee list about the manner in which we're handling imports of
source code from other projects.
The FSF's guidelines permit us to import code (assuming it's free
software, of course), but, as specified here:
http://www.gnu.org/p
32 matches
Mail list logo
