Re: [rfa] FRV input files

[Doug Evans <dje at transmeta dot com>]

Andrew Cagney writes:
 > Having the FSF distribute this code under anything other than the 
 > standard GPL would be an "improvised license change".

Ah, so if I wanted to add, say, a regexp package to Binutils releases
and use it in libopcodes, I'd have to make it GPL right?
[no answers from the peanut gallery please, I want to hear Andrew's opinion]

 > I [wearing a Red Hat] can't dictate the licencing terms under which the 
 > FSF distributes these FSF (C) files.

Strawman.  Who said anything about dictating.

 > > Also, I'm not sure I want *.cpu to say it's part of Binutils.
 > 
 > A file identified as being part of "binutils", is covered by an FSF 
 > "binutils" assignment.  This makes everyones life a lot easier.

Easier for who and why?