Re: [newlib-cygwin] Add RISC-V port for newlib

[Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn at redhat dot com>]

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Kito Cheng <kito.cheng@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jeff:
>
> We've discussion about the license issue today, how do you think about if we
> change to FreeBSD license for unambiguously refers to the 2-clause license?
>

It's your license so you can choose that if you want.    You will have
to get agreement among all
the contributors.  Once done, you can send a patch to the list.

I have made a snapshot today as there was an outstanding request for one.

Regards,

-- Jeff J.


> Thanks :)
>
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 7:11 AM, Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> IANAL, but Red Hat lawyers are.  See the first license in
>> COPYING.NEWLIB which they originally crafted.
>> I cannot fault SIFive for following that template.
>>
>> The referenced site refers the name "BSD license" to the 2-clause and
>> 3-clause license (4-clause does not come into play).
>> The 3 clause is assumed in the Red Hat case and I also assume the
>> SIFive case.  I do not know if the site originally
>> referred to the 3-clause as default when the lawyers drafted that.  I
>> can clarify if needed that it is the 3-clause.
>>
>> -- Jeff J.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > On 08/16/2017 05:11 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> >> On 08/16/2017 05:01 PM, Jeff Johnston wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=newlib-cygwin.git;h=363dbb9e44d0101f29ec34cadd001893daab3fc6
>> >>>
>> >>> commit 363dbb9e44d0101f29ec34cadd001893daab3fc6
>> >>> Author: Kito Cheng <kito@andestech.com>
>> >>> Date:   Thu Jul 27 16:44:22 2017 +0800
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>>  25 files changed, 7198 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> That's a lot of code in one patch; is it something that can be
>> >> logically
>> >> split into smaller, easier-to-review portions?
>> >
>> > Hmm, I see now that I attempted to reply to the commit bot, rather than
>> > the original message; so at this point, any changes need to be followup
>> > patches (and you can't split what has already been pushed).  Which
>> > leaves my question:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> diff --git a/COPYING.NEWLIB b/COPYING.NEWLIB
>> >>> index 9b4c569..942c90a 100644
>> >>> --- a/COPYING.NEWLIB
>> >>> +++ b/COPYING.NEWLIB
>> >>> @@ -1133,3 +1133,16 @@ DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
>> >>> HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
>> >>>  THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
>> >>>  (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
>> >>> OF
>> >>>  THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>> >>> +
>> >>> +(49) - SiFive Inc. (riscv-* targets)
>> >>> +
>> >>> +Copyright (c) 2017  SiFive Inc. All rights reserved.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not a lawyer, but how can all rights be reserved if if it open
>> >> source?  This claim is incongruous with:
>> >>
>> >>> +
>> >>> +This copyrighted material is made available to anyone wishing to use,
>> >>> +modify, copy, or redistribute it subject to the terms and conditions
>> >>> +of the BSD License.   This program is distributed in the hope that
>> >>> +it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY expressed or implied,
>> >>> +including the implied warranties of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR
>> >>> +A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  A copy of this license is available at
>> >>> +http://www.opensource.org/licenses.
>> >>
>> >> this disclaimer.
>> >>
>> >> "the BSD License" is ambiguous; there have been at least three major
>> >> variants (2-clause, 3-clause, and 4-clause), and the 4-clause version
>> >> is
>> >> not compatible with GPL, so it matters that you be more precise on
>> >> which
>> >> license is intended.  (These days, most people use 2-clause).
>> >>
>> > --
>> > Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
>> > Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3266
>> > Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org
>> >
>
>