Re: what happened to COPYING.newlib in the tarball?

["Bryan K. Ogawa" <bkogawa at primenet dot com>]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, J. Johnston wrote:

> "Bryan K. Ogawa" wrote:
[...]
> > However, I had a few license-related questions.

[q&a snipped]

Thanks for the information, and the corrections to my non-careful
examination of the tarball.  A few more clarifications:

It appears that the code covered by copying.dj (and thus, by the GPL
with some exceptions) is restricted to the cases that:

1.  You are using go32.
2.  You are using the machine/i386 setjmp assembly stuff.  Is this for
DOS only?
3.  You use the mn10x00 access.c
4.  you use the h8300 file.h

Is this a proper interpretation of the intent of the coders ?  If the
answer is "you need to ask your lawyer", I understand, but I'm more asking
"what were people thinking" instead of "what can I get away with".

The reason I'm asking is that I noticed that some people doing hobby
development for the Dreamcast were rolling their own (X11-licensed) libc
because they were under the impression that newlib was GPL'ed, and if
that's not the case, then I thought I'd recommend that they use newlib.

Thanks,

-- 
bryan k ogawa  <bkogawa@primenet.com>   http://www.primenet.com/~bkogawa/