This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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 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"rescinded" announcement made by the Berkeley folks: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.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]