On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 5:23 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > * Richard Fontana: > > > I think the only complication here is that there is currently no > > active contributor to glibc from IBM, > > This is not accurate, several people from IBM are regularly contributing > to glibc. IBM is very active in the GNU toolchain in general, and I > don't see this changing while we use the GNU toolchain to build Fedora. Indeed, I don't know why I had a mistaken impression. > However, the glibc code in question has no active maintainer, IBM or > otherwise, but this doesn't strike me as particularly relevant to > relicensing (which would not be the appropriate thing to do without > approval from the copyright holder even if there was an active > maintainer). It matters to a potential full rewrite, but that's > difficult for one of the impacted files because there is no clear > specification what it should do (it's for debugging output). But as far > as I understand it anyway, the rewrite won't be necessary, so I haven't > explored this approach. Good news, this has now been fixed: https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commitdiff;h=ae49a7b29acc184b03c2a6bd6ac01b5e08efd54f Richard -- _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
