This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: --enable-runtime-pseudo-reloc support in cygwin, take 3.
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 07:38:23PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>Charles Wilson wrote:
>>I've tested Egor's patch and it seems to work just fine, as demonstrated
>>by the two test cases he posted last week, AND as demonstrated by the
>>test case posted to the binutils list some months ago (it tested
>>pseudo-reloc behavior in the child after a fork).
>>I've also tested Egor's runtime reloc support with Ralf's binutils "use
>>the DLL as the import lib" and it ALSO works fine in all three cases.
>>I'm going to continue using ld.exe-ralf and
>>cygwin1.dll-egor/libcygwin.a-egor for my day-to-day use, just to see if
>>something wacky crops up...
>>On balance, I agree that #1 is the best option. Unless I run afoul of
>>some unforseen wackiness in the next few days, recommend inclusion as is
>>(in the most recent iteration, e.g. no cygwin.sc changes)
>So far, no problems. I'm gonna go on record in favor of this patch, in
>its 4th incarnation
>given that winsup/cygwin/lib/getopt.c(*) still retains its BSD licensing
>and comments, there's no reason to change the (non-)license/public
>domain attribution in egor's pseudo-relocs.c file. Egor's patch #4
>should be able to be committed as-is.
You know, I don't recall asking for legal opinions. There is absolutely
no reason why I should trust the legal analysis of anyone who is not a
If public domain of Berkeley licensing was a huge win, then I really
wouldn't be asking anyone to fill out cygwin assignments, would I?
>(*) winsup/cygwin/lib/getopt.c still retains the original
>BSD-with-advert license which is explicitly incompatible with the GPL.
>And since it is the NetBSD variant, it doesn't fall under the
>"rescinded" announcement made by the Berkeley folks:
Yes, and perhaps you noticed this when I mentioned it in the mingw-dvlpr
mailing list or perhaps not.
Regardless, I don't need an education of what kind of licenses are in
cygwin. I'm well aware of what's there.
>(the NetBSD folks are quite clear that they LIKE the advertisement
>clause in their license)
>However, the FreeBSD folks DO abide by the "rescind clause 3" decision;
>perhaps we should replace our (modified) getopt.c with a similarly
>modified one from FreeBSD?
There's a conspicuous lack of an IANAL here. Odd.