Re: RFC: Contributing the CGEN source to the FSF

[Doug Evans <dje@sebabeach.org>]

Hi.  I realize I'm coming into this discussion pretty late ...

CGEN isn't (or wasn't) GPLv<x>, it's GPLv<x> + autoconf-like-exception.
Question: How will things look in the brave new world?
I see from src/cgen/COPYING.CGEN cgen is still copyright by Redhat
and has the autoconf-like-exception.  How will COPYING.CGEN look
after it's donated to the FSF?

btw, while we're on the subject, and apologies for mixing two threads
in one but they seem related.
'nother question: If a .cpu file is pure GPLv<x>, does
"As a special exception, Red Hat gives unlimited permission to copy,
distribute and modify the code that is the output of CGEN." work?
Seems like a useful FAQ entry if nothing else.  Things have changed
and I've long since forgotten the issues.

Nick writes:
 > 
 > Hi Guys,
 > 
 >   I would like to have cgen sources contributed to the FSF.  I am
 >   prepared to do the work, but does anyone have any objections or
 >   concerns ?  If I can get agreement to the change then I will go
 >   ahead with it as soon as possible.
 > 
 >   One notable consequence of contributing the sources is that the
 >   source license would change from GPL version 2 to GPL version 3, in
 >   line with current FSF policy.
 > 
 >   Another consequence would be that we could remove one of the cpu/
 >   directories (either <toplevel>/cpu or <toplevel>/cgen/cpu, I am not
 >   sure which would be better).
 > 
 >   What do people think - is this a good idea ?
 >   
 > Cheers
 >   Nick
 > 
 > PS.  The impetus for this change has come from the FSF initiative to
 >   change all of their projects sources over to the GPLv3 (or LGPLv3).
 >   This includes both the binutils and GDB projects, so it would be
 >   consistent if the cgen sources were changed over as well.  (They do
 >   not have to be, of course).  So, if the cgen sources are going to
 >   be changed to GPLv3 then why not contribute them at the same time ?