This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: Broadcom XLP support

> From: Maciej W. Rozycki []
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2016, wrote:
> > > That might be questionable, I advise enquiring with FSF.  It might be
> > > easier if XLP instruction set documentation was available, but it's NDA'd
> > > I believe.  Granted, with that in hand and using XLR as a template it
> > > would be hard to come up with code substantially different from any
> > > previously proposed.
> >
> > Then again, Broadcom (or its predecessors) distributed their modified
> > GPL-licensed tool chains, never to my knowledge claiming that the GPL
> > didn't apply to those modified versions.
>  True, that allows you to use and redistribute such modified software as
> per the licence terms of GNU GPL (which is why people can use Broadcom's
> changes at all), however it does not make anyone but Broadcom a copyright
> holder.  For you to become a copyright holder you'd need a separate
> agreement between you and Broadcom, assigning their copyright to you, and
> otherwise you are merely licensed to use their modifications to software
> according to the terms set out in the licence.
>  And you need to be a copyright holder in the first place to be able to
> assign your copyright to FSF (or anyone else), or at least disclaim it,
> which is a prerequisite for changes to be included with FSF sources.  I
> think it is obvious that you cannot assign or disclaim (or otherwise
> control) someone else's copyright.

Wait a second here.  In times past, when we distributed code
on HW, we were counseled that we had to have the source code
available to whomever wanted to reproduce the OSS code we had
on the box.  That would include, but not limit to, 3rd party code
that was stuck into OSS code.  In fact, there was a big stink about
this several years back in which a HW vendor got zapped due to NOT
releasing code directly to a customer that requested it (though it
was not their copyrighted code to begin with.

What you've said confuses me.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]