This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the newlib project.
Re: Licensing and the newlib dir
- From: Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn at redhat dot com>
- To: Stuart Henderson <Stuart dot Henderson at analog dot com>
- Cc: "Newlib Mailing List (newlib at sourceware dot org)" <newlib at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 15:36:57 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: Licensing and the newlib dir
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <4A389CBDCB95794CA3A0A09E456CC0052F6BABC0 at NWD2MBX7 dot ad dot analog dot com>
Yes, they default to the Red Hat BSD license. It is the 3 clause license.
-- Jeff J.
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stuart Henderson" <Stuart.Henderson@analog.com>
> To: "Newlib Mailing List (firstname.lastname@example.org)" <email@example.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 6:49:28 AM
> Subject: Licensing and the newlib dir
> COPYING.NEWLIB says:
> "The newlib subdirectory is a collection of software from several sources.
> Each file may have its own copyright/license that is embedded in the source
> file. Unless otherwise noted in the body of the source file(s), the
> following copyright
> notices will apply to the contents of the newlib subdirectory: "
> However, if a file has no copyright notice or license information, how are
> you supposed to correlate that file to a particular license or copyright
> For instance, a lot of the crt files:
> have nothing in them to suggest a license or copyright holder.
> Do they default to the RedHat BSD license? If so, is this the 2 or 3 clause
> BSD license?
> Apologies if this is explained already.