Greetings! The FSF has requested that we change the software license
to GPLv3 or later, and the documentation license FDLv1.3 or later.
By this I think they mean LGPLv3 of course. To remain consistent with
the Debian Free Software guidelines, I think we'd have to add with no
invariant sections,
Camm Maguire wrote:
I'm considering removing the binutils subtree, as all targets are
working now with custreloc save ia64 and hppa, which use dlopen as
always. One can still build against an external bfd library if
desired. It is probably necessary to keep the local gmp copy as a
convenience
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Camm Maguire c...@maguirefamily.org wrote:
Greetings! The FSF has requested that we change the software license
to GPLv3 or later, and the documentation license FDLv1.3 or later.
By this I think they mean LGPLv3 of course.
Forgive me if I've mistaken your
A change to the most recent licenses will make things consistent with
FSF's current way of thinking about open source, though more
aggressive developers seem to think it's restrictive. Given the
typical users and usual applications of GCL, this may not be an issue.
But I'm not sure -- if GCL is
Donald Winiecki dwinie...@boisestate.edu writes:
| A change to the most recent licenses will make things consistent with
| FSF's current way of thinking about open source, though more
| aggressive developers seem to think it's restrictive. Given the
| typical users and usual applications of GCL,
