On Thursday 10 December 2009 07:12:05 Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Rob Landley wrote: > > worked, and is not an option if _I_ don't want to have to switch to > > eglibc. (Which is lgplv3. Ew.) > > It appears you haven't actually looked at the EGLIBC sources.
Not since a couple of the glibc developers announced their intention to switch the project to lgplv3 back in 2007, no. I knew they'd pushed the move from lgplv2 to lgplv2.1 over Ulrich Drepper's objections: http://lists.altlinux.org/pipermail/devel/2001-August/003206.html So I basically washed my hands of the project back then. (The last glibc version I built from source was 2.5.7.) > It's > LGPLv2.1 (or greater, so if you want to distribute pieces under LGPLv3 you > can), like FSF GLIBC. What happens if FSF GLIBC changes license is up to > the EGLIBC Consortium. EGLIBC FAQ #1: eglibc is not meant to be a fork. http://www.eglibc.org/faq So you're saying the FSF didn't go through with the license switch on the base project they're not forking? /me checks glibc git... Nope, not yet. Looks like Red Hat or somebody argued 'em out of it, at least so far. Cool. Good to know. Thanks. I might take a poke at eglibc this weekend then. Rob -- Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
