Terms for new port and other larger submissions?

Terms for new port and other larger submissions?

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

In due time, I believe Axis will offer a CGEN description for
the CRIS CPU core family.  It would be nice if it could be
distributed together with the other CGEN sources.  Assigning
copyright to Red Hat (as suggested in
<URL:http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cgen/2000-q4/msg00118.html>)
is not an option AFAIK.  Is there some acceptable alternative
way to proceed?  A license identical to COPYING.CGEN, s/Red
Hat/Axis Communications/g, seems ok.

brgds, H-P

Re: Terms for new port and other larger submissions?

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Hi -

On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 11:20:35PM +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> In due time, I believe Axis will offer a CGEN description for
> the CRIS CPU core family.  It would be nice if it could be
> distributed together with the other CGEN sources.  [...]

We're discussing this general issue internally.  One point though
is clear: you need to think about what is to happen to the files
generated from your cpu description.  Their inclusion in (C)FSF
packages like binutils may be difficult if Axis is to keep that
copyright too.

- FChE

Re: Terms for new port and other larger submissions?

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:52:58 -0500
> From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>

> On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 11:20:35PM +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > In due time, I believe Axis will offer a CGEN description for
> > the CRIS CPU core family.  It would be nice if it could be
> > distributed together with the other CGEN sources.  [...]
> 
> We're discussing this general issue internally.

Thanks for the heads-up!

>  One point though
> is clear: you need to think about what is to happen to the files
> generated from your cpu description.  Their inclusion in (C)FSF
> packages like binutils may be difficult if Axis is to keep that
> copyright too.

Binutils might be a bad example (there's already a non-CGEN
port); let's say sim (gdb) instead.

Assigning copyright to the FSF is no problem.  (There's a
blanket assignment in place and no problem assigning copyright
for new (C)FSF packages if requested.)  Assigning copyright to
another company is a problem.

I'm a bit puzzled: does someone think including generated files
in (C)FSF packages would be less difficult if copyright for the
CGEN CPU description is assigned to Red Hat, as was requested in
the reference?

brgds, H-P

Re: Terms for new port and other larger submissions?

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 814 bytes --]

Hi -


On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 12:20:12AM +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> [...]
> Assigning copyright to the FSF is no problem.  [...]

I see.  This is becoming a common and sensible concern
that we're currently trying to figure out how to deal with
consistently across some other Red Hat-originated projects.
Please hang on.  (In the mean time, of course you're welcome
to post your .cpu/.opc files publically somewhere.)


> I'm a bit puzzled: does someone think including generated files
> in (C)FSF packages would be less difficult if copyright for the
> CGEN CPU description is assigned to Red Hat, as was requested in
> the reference?

I mentioned it only because we routinely assign (C) of most
generated files, under our blanket FSF assignment.  If you do
the same, there is little difference.


- FChE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]