Re: testing before a release

[Bryce McKinlay]

Tom Tromey wrote:

> 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.

Its unfair to lump classpath/libgcj and libgcc together here. The libgcc 
license has and does seem to work well - for libgcc. This is a small 
compiler support library that makes little sense outside the scope of 
supporting object files compiled gcc. But classpath and libgcj are much 
larger and broader in scope than libgcc or even libstdc++.

The question is whether classpath/libgcj should be using the libgcc 
license or whether the classpath license should be clarified to prevent 
misinterpretation or misuse.

regards

Bryce.