Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP id AA5832 ; Fri, 01 Jan 93 01:57:23 EST Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!panix!tls From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: [386bsd] GNU malloc in favor of BSD malloc in libc - shall we vote? Message-ID: <C07BG0.AMs@panix.com> Date: 2 Jan 93 00:45:36 GMT References: <JKH.92Dec31154004@whisker.lotus.ie> <1hvu79INNjqq@ftp.UU.NET> <1992Dec31.232412.14996@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Organization: Panix Public Access Internet & Unix, NYC Lines: 17 In article <1992Dec31.232412.14996@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: >In article <1hvu79INNjqq@ftp.UU.NET> sef@Kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: >#GNU malloc is copylefted. Using it in a library means that every program >#compiled using that library is copylefted. That is almost certainly the >#reason why it is not used, and I cannot fault anyone for that. > >Well, this would mean that programs would have to be distributed under >the less restrictive GLPL instead of the GPL, but I still bet many >people won't like this restriction. People would be required to ship a >linkable executable, but would not be forced to release source code. The Andrew malloc seems pretty good. Why oughtn't we use it? -- Thor Lancelot Simon tls@panix.COM "Better be careful there. John might decide to start taking legal action against people who refuse to buy stuff from him." --Kevin McBride