Re: testing before a release

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Etienne" == Etienne M Gagnon <address@hidden> writes:

Etienne> I think tha if people already take the time to debate the AWT
Etienne> license change, they might just as well solve the huge hole
Etienne> in the GPL+exception license by choosing a license which
Etienne> simply says what they intend.  If people want a "LGPL--"
Etienne> license, they should not use a "GPL--" license.  One the the
Etienne> big advantages of an "LGPL--" license is that it makes the
Etienne> library much friendlier to use within larger "LGPL" libraries
Etienne> (no problems with taking a few lines of code here and there,
Etienne> which is not possible under a "GPL--" license).

The history behind this choice is that this is the license which
libgcc has used for years.  Since it had the properties that Cygnus
wanted at the time (that libgcj was assigned to the FSF), and since it
was already in existence, the people at Cygnus who made this decision
chose this license.

I've always assumed that since libgcc has used this license for years
(probably more than 10 years), that it is well understood and
acceptable (for its purpose).  If it has problems, I think they should
be addressed through RMS and the gcc steering committee.  If this
license is unworkable for libgcj then it is a hundred times worse for
libgcc -- libgcc is required by every gcc-compiled program.

Tom