From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21512 invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2011 16:33:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 21502 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Apr 2011 16:33:39 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mout0.freenet.de (HELO mout0.freenet.de) (195.4.92.90) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:33:26 +0000 Received: from [195.4.92.26] (helo=16.mx.freenet.de) by mout0.freenet.de with esmtpa (ID ralf.corsepius@freenet.de) (port 25) (Exim 4.72 #5) id 1QCaL9-00008P-RQ; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:33:19 +0200 Received: from hsi-kbw-109-193-024-246.hsi7.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de ([109.193.24.246]:62947 helo=[192.168.1.104]) by 16.mx.freenet.de with esmtpsa (ID ralf.corsepius@freenet.de) (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (port 587) (Exim 4.72 #3) id 1QCaL9-0006IL-NH; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:33:19 +0200 Message-ID: <4DAF0ACE.3010901@rtems.org> Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:33:00 -0000 From: Ralf Corsepius User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110307 Fedora/3.1.9-0.39.b3pre.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: "Jose E. Marchesi" , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Work on the SIS ERC32 Emulator References: <87k4erg3ip.fsf@gnu.org> <20110418163319.GE2402@adacore.com> <8762qbseb0.fsf@gnu.org> <20110420161910.GN21392@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20110420161910.GN21392@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2011-04/txt/msg00118.txt.bz2 On 04/20/2011 06:19 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> Do you plan to upgrade the files under 'sis' from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+? > > I only see 2 "sis" files: erc32/sis.[hc]. Are these the files you > are referring to? I don't know how "easy" it's going to be doing > that upgrade, since the FSF does not hold the copyright to these > files. I don't think we can upgrade the license on our own, can we? These files are licensed GPLv2+. I.e. anybody can opt to relicense them under "a GPLv2+" license, e.g. GPLv3. Ralf