From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2012-08-23 13:12:19
|
I'm beginning to change the file preamble for the files redistribute. The change is to make them all consistent and to identify MinGW.org project as the holder of the file. I am also giving noise when a file is included without including windows.h first or instead. I would like to hear your comments on this matter. Note, the error display will be changed slightly if you should include windows.h to use the file versus you should include windows.h before using the file. <example> /** * @file winbase.h * @copy 2012 MinGW.org project * @see LICENSE * http://mingw.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=mingw/mingw.org-wsl;a=blob_plain;f=LICENSE */ ... #ifndef _WINDOWS_H #error ERROR: You must include windows.h to use winbase.h. #endif </example> <file name="LICENSE"> Copyright (c) 2012 MinGW.org project Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice, this permission notice and the below disclaimer shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. </file> -- Earnie -- https://sites.google.com/site/earnieboyd |
From: Charles W. <cwi...@us...> - 2012-08-24 07:25:18
|
On 8/23/2012 9:12 AM, Earnie Boyd wrote: > <file name="LICENSE"> > Copyright (c) 2012 MinGW.org project > > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a > copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), > to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation > the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, > and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the > Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: > > The above copyright notice, this permission notice and the below disclaimer > shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. > > THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR > IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, > FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE > AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER > LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING > FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER > DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. > </file> So, I take it this is a global switch from "public domain" to an MIT/X-like license? Or am I missing something? (I have no problem with that, if so. In many legal jurisdictions, 'public domain' has certain difficulties...) -- Chuck |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2012-08-24 11:24:30
|
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Charles Wilson wrote: > On 8/23/2012 9:12 AM, Earnie Boyd wrote: >> <file name="LICENSE"> >> Copyright (c) 2012 MinGW.org project >> >> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a >> copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), >> to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation >> the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, >> and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the >> Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: >> >> The above copyright notice, this permission notice and the below disclaimer >> shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. >> >> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR >> IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, >> FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE >> AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER >> LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING >> FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER >> DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. >> </file> > > So, I take it this is a global switch from "public domain" to an > MIT/X-like license? Or am I missing something? (I have no problem with > that, if so. In many legal jurisdictions, 'public domain' has certain > difficulties...) That is the intent. We've discussed it before and it does make sense. In the combined repository (see http://mingw.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=mingw/mingw.org-wsl;a=summary) I'm moving source that will not allow me to apply this license to it to another directory. I had originally named one as gpl but I've found another piece of software include/GL that I need to also consider so I might create another layer of indirection such that I create a misc top source directory and move the gpl directory to it and then move include/GL to the misc directory as well so that I keep all source with a different license segregated to its own path. -- Earnie -- https://sites.google.com/site/earnieboyd |
From: Keith M. <kei...@us...> - 2012-08-24 11:59:14
|
On 24/08/12 08:24, Charles Wilson wrote: > On 8/23/2012 9:12 AM, Earnie Boyd wrote: >> <file name="LICENSE"> >> Copyright (c) 2012 MinGW.org project >> >> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a >> copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), >> to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation >> the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, >> and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the >> Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: >> >> The above copyright notice, this permission notice and the below disclaimer >> shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. >> >> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR >> IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, >> FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE >> AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER >> LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING >> FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER >> DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. >> </file> > > So, I take it this is a global switch from "public domain" to an > MIT/X-like license? Or am I missing something? (I have no problem with > that, if so. In many legal jurisdictions, 'public domain' has certain > difficulties...) I have no problem with it either; I normally embed the above, or its GPL/LGPL counterpart as appropriate, into EVERY ONE of my individual source files, (which as I read it, is actually a GPL requirement). MIT/X may be less stringent in this respect, but the above statement is sufficiently lean that we might consider a similar strategy, rather than simply a not-so-obvious '@see LICENSE' one liner. One further point: Earnie has framed the copyright notice with holder identification of 'MinGW.org project', whereas I've framed it as just 'MinGW Project', throughout the mingw-get source code base. Would you prefer me to add the '.org' suffix throughout? -- Regards, Keith. |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2012-08-24 14:20:19
|
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Keith Marshall wrote: > On 24/08/12 08:24, Charles Wilson wrote: >> On 8/23/2012 9:12 AM, Earnie Boyd wrote: >>> <file name="LICENSE"> >>> Copyright (c) 2012 MinGW.org project >>> >>> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a >>> copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), >>> to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation >>> the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, >>> and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the >>> Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: >>> >>> The above copyright notice, this permission notice and the below disclaimer >>> shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. >>> >>> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR >>> IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, >>> FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE >>> AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER >>> LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING >>> FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER >>> DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. >>> </file> >> >> So, I take it this is a global switch from "public domain" to an >> MIT/X-like license? Or am I missing something? (I have no problem with >> that, if so. In many legal jurisdictions, 'public domain' has certain >> difficulties...) > > I have no problem with it either; I normally embed the above, or its > GPL/LGPL counterpart as appropriate, into EVERY ONE of my individual > source files, (which as I read it, is actually a GPL requirement). > MIT/X may be less stringent in this respect, but the above statement is > sufficiently lean that we might consider a similar strategy, rather than > simply a not-so-obvious '@see LICENSE' one liner. > I've seen it both ways. I need to hear what others wish as well. > One further point: Earnie has framed the copyright notice with holder > identification of 'MinGW.org project', whereas I've framed it as just > 'MinGW Project', throughout the mingw-get source code base. Would you > prefer me to add the '.org' suffix throughout? I have done so in order to be specific. There are too many MinGW projects floating about these days and people get confused. I've created a branch "file-preamble" for this work which I've pushed to the repository for review. If we decide to include the LICENSE in each file I'll create another branch and delete the current "file-preamble" branch. -- Earnie -- https://sites.google.com/site/earnieboyd |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2012-08-30 12:02:30
|
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Earnie Boyd wrote: > On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Keith Marshall wrote: >> On 24/08/12 08:24, Charles Wilson wrote: >>> On 8/23/2012 9:12 AM, Earnie Boyd wrote: >>>> <file name="LICENSE"> >>>> Copyright (c) 2012 MinGW.org project >>>> >>>> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a >>>> copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), >>>> to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation >>>> the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, >>>> and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the >>>> Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: >>>> >>>> The above copyright notice, this permission notice and the below disclaimer >>>> shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. >>>> >>>> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR >>>> IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, >>>> FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE >>>> AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER >>>> LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING >>>> FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER >>>> DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. >>>> </file> >>> >>> So, I take it this is a global switch from "public domain" to an >>> MIT/X-like license? Or am I missing something? (I have no problem with >>> that, if so. In many legal jurisdictions, 'public domain' has certain >>> difficulties...) >> >> I have no problem with it either; I normally embed the above, or its >> GPL/LGPL counterpart as appropriate, into EVERY ONE of my individual >> source files, (which as I read it, is actually a GPL requirement). >> MIT/X may be less stringent in this respect, but the above statement is >> sufficiently lean that we might consider a similar strategy, rather than >> simply a not-so-obvious '@see LICENSE' one liner. >> > > I've seen it both ways. I need to hear what others wish as well. > >> One further point: Earnie has framed the copyright notice with holder >> identification of 'MinGW.org project', whereas I've framed it as just >> 'MinGW Project', throughout the mingw-get source code base. Would you >> prefer me to add the '.org' suffix throughout? > > I have done so in order to be specific. There are too many MinGW > projects floating about these days and people get confused. > > I've created a branch "file-preamble" for this work which I've pushed > to the repository for review. If we decide to include the LICENSE in > each file I'll create another branch and delete the current > "file-preamble" branch. Any further comment? -- Earnie -- https://sites.google.com/site/earnieboyd |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2012-09-04 18:46:27
|
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Earnie Boyd wrote: > On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Earnie Boyd wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Keith Marshall wrote: >>> On 24/08/12 08:24, Charles Wilson wrote: >>>> On 8/23/2012 9:12 AM, Earnie Boyd wrote: >>>>> <file name="LICENSE"> >>>>> Copyright (c) 2012 MinGW.org project >>>>> >>>>> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a >>>>> copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), >>>>> to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation >>>>> the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, >>>>> and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the >>>>> Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: >>>>> >>>>> The above copyright notice, this permission notice and the below disclaimer >>>>> shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. >>>>> >>>>> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR >>>>> IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, >>>>> FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE >>>>> AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER >>>>> LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING >>>>> FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER >>>>> DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. >>>>> </file> >>>> >>>> So, I take it this is a global switch from "public domain" to an >>>> MIT/X-like license? Or am I missing something? (I have no problem with >>>> that, if so. In many legal jurisdictions, 'public domain' has certain >>>> difficulties...) >>> >>> I have no problem with it either; I normally embed the above, or its >>> GPL/LGPL counterpart as appropriate, into EVERY ONE of my individual >>> source files, (which as I read it, is actually a GPL requirement). >>> MIT/X may be less stringent in this respect, but the above statement is >>> sufficiently lean that we might consider a similar strategy, rather than >>> simply a not-so-obvious '@see LICENSE' one liner. >>> >> >> I've seen it both ways. I need to hear what others wish as well. >> >>> One further point: Earnie has framed the copyright notice with holder >>> identification of 'MinGW.org project', whereas I've framed it as just >>> 'MinGW Project', throughout the mingw-get source code base. Would you >>> prefer me to add the '.org' suffix throughout? >> >> I have done so in order to be specific. There are too many MinGW >> projects floating about these days and people get confused. >> >> I've created a branch "file-preamble" for this work which I've pushed >> to the repository for review. If we decide to include the LICENSE in >> each file I'll create another branch and delete the current >> "file-preamble" branch. > > Any further comment? FYI, assuming there is no further comment by Thursday, September 6th, 2012 at 8:00 A.M. EDT (-04:00 UTC) I will merge the file-preamble branch to the master. -- Earnie -- https://sites.google.com/site/earnieboyd |
From: Charles W. <cwi...@us...> - 2012-09-05 04:27:27
|
>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Keith Marshall wrote: >>>> I have no problem with it either; I normally embed the above, or its >>>> GPL/LGPL counterpart as appropriate, into EVERY ONE of my individual >>>> source files, (which as I read it, is actually a GPL requirement). >>>> MIT/X may be less stringent in this respect, but the above statement is >>>> sufficiently lean that we might consider a similar strategy, rather than >>>> simply a not-so-obvious '@see LICENSE' one liner. I agree with Keith on this one. Embedding a git path -- which may change as sourceforge migrates their VCS again and again and again (or simply changes servers), or if we switch to $next-best-vcs in 10 years -- seems to be a bad idea to me. The MIT/X text is only a 20 lines or so; the pre-processor time involved in that is tiny compared to actually parsing and translating to generic, or thence into gimple, or into RTL, or finally into object code. On 9/4/2012 2:46 PM, Earnie Boyd wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Earnie Boyd wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Earnie Boyd wrote: >>> I've created a branch "file-preamble" for this work which I've pushed >>> to the repository for review. If we decide to include the LICENSE in >>> each file I'll create another branch and delete the current >>> "file-preamble" branch. >> >> Any further comment? > > FYI, assuming there is no further comment by Thursday, September 6th, > 2012 at 8:00 A.M. EDT (-04:00 UTC) I will merge the file-preamble > branch to the master. Sorry for the delay; my home network RAID had a major (2 drive) failure & I spent most of the weekend doing data recovery and restoration from backups. (Let that be a lesson, kids: always backup your data, and do it more than every few months...) FWIW, the X.Org version of this license words the middle paragraph a little better: Earnie's version: The above copyright notice, this permission notice and the below disclaimer shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. X.Org's version: The above copyright notice and this permission notice (including the next paragraph) shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. but is otherwise identical. -- Chuck |
From: Keith M. <kei...@us...> - 2012-09-05 19:12:00
|
On 05/09/12 05:26, Charles Wilson wrote: > FWIW, the X.Org version of this license words the middle paragraph a > little better: > > Earnie's version: > The above copyright notice, this permission notice and the below > disclaimer shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of > the Software. > > X.Org's version: > The above copyright notice and this permission notice (including the > next paragraph) shall be included in all copies or substantial portions > of the Software. > > but is otherwise identical. There seem to be several variants around; in the X Consortium version, as it appears in the install-sh file in our build-aux repository, (and which I originally copied from the autoconf distribution), I see: # The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be # included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. while, in my own boiler-plate, I've (recently) adapted that to become: # The above copyright notice, this permission notice, and the following # disclaimer shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of # the Software. BTW, it may be a somewhat tenuous argument, but doesn't the wording "shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the software" sort of imply that the notice should be embedded in each individual file? Each file is, or at least might be described as, a "substantial portion of the software" in its own right; certainly, embedding minimises the possibility that any such (single file) portion of the software might be distributed in isolation, without inclusion of the mandatory notice. OTOH, I can also see substantial merit in providing a free-standing repository, populated by boiler-plate templates suitable for ultimate pasting into individual project files. -- Regards, Keith. |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2012-09-05 11:49:23
|
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Charles Wilson wrote: >>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Keith Marshall wrote: >>>>> I have no problem with it either; I normally embed the above, or its >>>>> GPL/LGPL counterpart as appropriate, into EVERY ONE of my individual >>>>> source files, (which as I read it, is actually a GPL requirement). >>>>> MIT/X may be less stringent in this respect, but the above statement is >>>>> sufficiently lean that we might consider a similar strategy, rather than >>>>> simply a not-so-obvious '@see LICENSE' one liner. > > I agree with Keith on this one. Embedding a git path -- which may > change as sourceforge migrates their VCS again and again and again (or > simply changes servers), or if we switch to $next-best-vcs in 10 years > -- seems to be a bad idea to me. > Good point on the link to the LICENSE file. I'll go ahead and embed the license into each file. I'll delete the current file-preamble branch so that the commit history is cleaner. > The MIT/X text is only a 20 lines or so; the pre-processor time involved > in that is tiny compared to actually parsing and translating to generic, > or thence into gimple, or into RTL, or finally into object code. > > On 9/4/2012 2:46 PM, Earnie Boyd wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Earnie Boyd wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Earnie Boyd wrote: >>>> I've created a branch "file-preamble" for this work which I've pushed >>>> to the repository for review. If we decide to include the LICENSE in >>>> each file I'll create another branch and delete the current >>>> "file-preamble" branch. >>> >>> Any further comment? >> >> FYI, assuming there is no further comment by Thursday, September 6th, >> 2012 at 8:00 A.M. EDT (-04:00 UTC) I will merge the file-preamble >> branch to the master. > > Sorry for the delay; my home network RAID had a major (2 drive) failure > & I spent most of the weekend doing data recovery and restoration from > backups. (Let that be a lesson, kids: always backup your data, and do > it more than every few months...) > Ouch, and you thought you were covered with a RAID, the bugs that were able to get through that guard must have been huge. ;) > FWIW, the X.Org version of this license words the middle paragraph a > little better: > > Earnie's version: > The above copyright notice, this permission notice and the below > disclaimer shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of > the Software. > > X.Org's version: > The above copyright notice and this permission notice (including the > next paragraph) shall be included in all copies or substantial portions > of the Software. > I can easily change to this. I copied the sentence from another project. -- Earnie -- https://sites.google.com/site/earnieboyd |
From: Charles W. <cwi...@us...> - 2012-09-05 14:47:18
|
On 9/5/2012 7:49 AM, Earnie Boyd wrote: > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Charles Wilson wrote: >> I agree with Keith on this one. Embedding a git path -- which may >> change as sourceforge migrates their VCS again and again and again (or >> simply changes servers), or if we switch to $next-best-vcs in 10 years >> -- seems to be a bad idea to me. >> > Good point on the link to the LICENSE file. I'll go ahead and embed > the license into each file. I'll delete the current file-preamble > branch so that the commit history is cleaner. Thanks. >> FWIW, the X.Org version of this license words the middle paragraph a >> little better: >> >> Earnie's version: >> The above copyright notice, this permission notice and the below >> disclaimer shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of >> the Software. >> >> X.Org's version: >> The above copyright notice and this permission notice (including the >> next paragraph) shall be included in all copies or substantial portions >> of the Software. >> > I can easily change to this. I copied the sentence from another project. > I figured as much. Just like BSD, there really is nothing that can be called "THE" MIT/X license; they are all slight variations of each other. I thought, why not go with the one that is actually from X (well, the "new" X after the acrimonious xfree86 divorce). -- Chuck |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2012-09-07 13:01:37
|
FYI, I've just pushed the changes for this to the master branch of mingw.org-wsl repository. -- Earnie -- https://sites.google.com/site/earnieboyd |