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

[DJ Delorie <dj at delorie dot com>]

> It appears that the code covered by copying.dj

Since I'm that DJ, I'll take a stab at answering.

> (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

Just because COPYING.DJ is included doesn't mean it applies to all the
files.  So, if these are the only files that say COPYING.DJ applies,
then you are correct.

> 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".

I was never made aware that my code had been used in newlib when it
was first copied (not that I mind).  Let's see...

i386/setjmp: still resembles the original a little
h8300hms/sys/file.h: too trivial to worry about.
sysmec/access.c: ditto.
sysnecv850/access.c: ditto.

I'm willing to turn copyright over on these files so that the generic
newlib license applies.  Hey, anything to get my old address out of
the sources ;-) (I've had three other addresses since that one)