On Sep 12, 2012, at 9:51 AM, C. Bergström <cbergst...@pathscale.com> wrote:
> On 09/12/12 05:39 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> DESCRIPTION >> >> * There was some licensing FUD discussed on the list, mostly to promote >> a "rationale" for moving the project elsewhere and/or releasing >> stdcxx under a different license. This has (hopefully) been clarified. > You willfully ignore the point and there is a clear need for an actionable > item here. Should someone email legal-discuss or what's the correct process > for this? What actionable item? > --------------------------------------- > Once again - This is not about *my* views, your views or your cousin bob's > views. If/when STDCXX ships to a large community of users their views may > differ - At the very least the FSF has clearly stated their views which gives > *others* concern. This point of objection needs to be resolved and we > appreciate your help in doing so. >
