On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Rob Landley wrote: > On Thursday 10 December 2009 17:43:51 Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Rob Landley wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > If FSF GLIBC were to change license, the Consortium would of course need > > to consider whether they find the new license viable for embedded use (and > > thus whether it would be necessary to become a permanent fork off the last > > version with the old license). > > Where are your release versions?
There are release branches corresponding to each FSF GLIBC release branch, but no actual releases from them. These should be as stable (both in general stability and in ABI terms) as the underlying FSF GLIBC release branches; snapshots from release branches have worked fine for Debian and Ubuntu, for example. If there's sufficient user demand for releases, the possibility could of course be considered. -- Joseph S. Myers [email protected] _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
