From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8597 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2009 18:11:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 8586 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Sep 2009 18:11:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from wildebeest.demon.nl (HELO gnu.wildebeest.org) (80.101.103.228) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:11:49 +0000 Received: from nescio.wildebeest.org ([192.168.1.1] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by gnu.wildebeest.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Mq9pz-00010E-JA; Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:11:40 +0200 Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.0 release process created From: Mark Wielaard To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Jack Howarth , Jonas Maebe , Jim Ingham , gdb@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20090922173419.GA21979@caradoc.them.org> References: <20090921043410.GA25454@adacore.com> <20090921125654.GA30075@bromo.med.uc.edu> <3D48AF75-6E1F-401C-8411-8388B7D893B9@elis.ugent.be> <20090921134617.GA30967@bromo.med.uc.edu> <187A0C0A-28B7-4A51-BE99-47C0F650C1F8@apple.com> <1253624335.20668.32.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> <92D837F2-68E5-45E8-AB54-F133E7DB2CCA@elis.ugent.be> <1253629868.20668.42.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> <20090922155557.GA13560@caradoc.them.org> <20090922171018.GB14971@bromo.med.uc.edu> <20090922173419.GA21979@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:11:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1253643059.3481.7.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -4.4 (----) Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00294.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2009-09-22 at 13:34 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 01:10:18PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote: > > I assume you mean the discussion of the FSF legal issues and not > > the discussion of what patches are required for gdb 7.0 to function > > on MacOS X (which would be entirely relevant to the list). > > Yes, I mean the message I was replying to. Apologies, I wasn't aware this was controversial. Didn't want to offend. I just wanted to point out that if Apple can distribute a version of gdb that functions on MacOS X then the relevant sources, including any authorization keys, should be available from them. So those could just be included with gdb upstream so all users can create such binaries. If that causes any legal uncertainty then indeed it would be better discussed directly with FSF legal. Cheers, Mark