In article <20030123043930.57F3A53E7F@thoreau.thistledown.com.au>
simonb@wasabisystems.com wrote:

> The problem with using a BFD'd crunchide is that we'd need to make sure
> that the licencing on the current version is compatible with the GPL.
> BFD is GPL'd and not LGPL'd, meaning anything that is linked against
> libbfd must also be GPL'd (or have equivalent licencing terms).

Yes, I know the problem. I guess that's the reason
the patch has not been accepted.

> In the case of mdsetimage, the author allowed a change to the file's
> licencing conditions so that it was compatible with the GPL.  The
> licence on crunchide isn't standard BSD - if you know that it is
> compatible with the GPL then using BFD is another option.

In the mdsetimage case, I think the only problem was
the advertising clause of the old BSD licence in mdsetimage.c.
Personally I think licencing clause in crunchide.c is mostly similar
with three clause BSD lincence, but I'm not a lawyer..
---
Izumi Tsutsui
tsutsui@ceres.dti.ne.jp