This is the mail archive of the libffi-discuss@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the libffi project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Non-gcc releases

From: Dalibor Topic <robilad at kaffe dot org>
To: Thomas Heller <theller at python dot net>
Cc: tromey at redhat dot com, libffi-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 18:53:34 +0200
Subject: Re: Non-gcc releases
References: <87fzbwu39a.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <hdwc8wzv.fsf@python.net> <87hdvkvnv8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <ekqoarp6.fsf@python.net> <407FFE09.3010505@kaffe.org> <r7unao0x.fsf@python.net>

Hi Thomas,

Thomas Heller wrote:

Dalibor Topic <robilad@kaffe.org> writes:

Thomas Heller wrote:

That's for sure, of course.  But does the fact that libffi sits in the
gcc repository make it GPL?  I don't think so.

It doesn't.

Again the question: are the applied patches covered by the GPL?  The
LICENSE file in the libffi directory still contains the redhat license.

Not as far as I know. I was going off the premise that the code you wanted to relicense was GPLd already, without looking at libffi's license in particular. Sorry for any confusion that might have caused.

cheers,
dalibor topic

References:
- Non-gcc releases
  - From: Tom Tromey
- Re: Non-gcc releases
  - From: Thomas Heller
- Re: Non-gcc releases
  - From: Tom Tromey
- Re: Non-gcc releases
  - From: Thomas Heller
- Re: Non-gcc releases
  - From: Dalibor Topic
- Re: Non-gcc releases
  - From: Thomas Heller

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]