[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Question about gperf output
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: Question about gperf output |
Date: |
Fri, 2 May 2008 09:21:06 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.5.4 |
Dear Karice,
> Based on the gperf changelog, it appears you are the most recently known
> maintainer of the code.
You could also have written to the address mentioned in the
"gperf --help" output.
> I am working with an open source project that would like to distribute
> output generated by gperf. The project in question does not have the same
> license as gperf so I was looking to confirm that the output of gperf is
> not subject to the same license under which gperf is distributed. I saw a
> recent posting on a Google newsgroup (that appears to have been submitted
> by Doug Schmidt, the original gperf author) that states the output is not
> subject to GPL:
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.soft-sys.ace/browse_thread/thread/fbc045744ad0a1f1#
>
> He confirmed this is the case.
I confirmed it too, in
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-utils/2007-05/msg00024.html
> In light of this, I was wondering if
> clarification of this could be made via the gperf project website or, even
> better, in a statement generated with the output of gperf? The reason I
> ask is so that it is abundantly clear to anyone who uses gperf that the
> output is not subject to the license under which gperf is distributed. If
> such a statement were made via the project website and/or in the output
> generated by gperf, then there would be no misunderstanding on this issue
> by those using gperf. Is this something that can be done?
Thank you for the suggestion. I'll put something about it into the
documentation.
Bruno
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: Question about gperf output,
Bruno Haible <=