Re: non-gcc linux?

From: Ion Badulescu (ionut@moisil.cs.columbia.edu)
Date: Sun Nov 05 2000 - 18:26:16 EST

Next message: Keith Owens: "Re: Kernel 2.4.0test10 crash (RAID+SMP)"
Previous message: David Woodhouse: "Re: Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page (Updated as of 2.4.0-test10)"
In reply to: Marc Lehmann: "Re: non-gcc linux?"
Next in thread: Alan Cox: "Re: non-gcc linux?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Sun, 5 Nov 2000 23:42:25 +0100, Marc Lehmann <pcg@goof.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 04:06:37PM -0500, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:

>> for SGI, or SGI would have to be willing to assign some code to FSF.
>
> Which is the standard procedure that the FSF requires for all it's
> programs to be able to defend them

... or sell them under a different license. Not that they would, but they
could, if they really wanted to.

Ion

-- 
  It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool,
            than to open it and remove all doubt.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Keith Owens: "Re: Kernel 2.4.0test10 crash (RAID+SMP)"
Previous message: David Woodhouse: "Re: Linux 2.4 Status / TODO page (Updated as of 2.4.0-test10)"
In reply to: Marc Lehmann: "Re: non-gcc linux?"
Next in thread: Alan Cox: "Re: non-gcc linux?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 07 2000 - 21:00:17 EST