From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27982 invoked by alias); 3 Apr 2002 01:23:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 27827 invoked from network); 3 Apr 2002 01:23:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Apr 2002 01:23:04 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 16sZUN-0005zG-00; Tue, 02 Apr 2002 20:23:03 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 17:23:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: David Anderson Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gdb-patches Digest 3 Apr 2002 00:52:01 -0000 Issue 1049 Message-ID: <20020402202303.A22858@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: David Anderson , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200204030117.RAA46721@quasar.engr.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200204030117.RAA46721@quasar.engr.sgi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00051.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 05:17:49PM -0800, David Anderson wrote: > > >I didn't know that the existing libdwarf had been LGPL'd; the copy on > >SGI's site certainly hasn't been, but that's a bit old. However, it's > >exceedingly unlikely we could get the copyright assigned to the FSF. > > Hm. Which site "hasn't been"? > > Yes, SGI's libdwarf is LGPL, but > I agree it is unlikely FSF could get the copyright. > > > davea@sgi.com ftp://ftp.sgi.com/sgi/dwarf/, which was the only one I could find when I was looking. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer