From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22817 invoked by alias); 27 Sep 2007 13:10:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 22808 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Sep 2007 13:10:24 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sebabeach.org (HELO sebabeach.org) (64.165.110.50) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:10:20 +0000 Received: from seba.sebabeach.org (seba.sebabeach.org [10.8.159.10]) by sebabeach.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 198B913EC2; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 06:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by seba.sebabeach.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 09ABF2EC6B; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 06:10:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Evans To: nickc@redhat.com cc: cgen@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: Contributing the CGEN source to the FSF Message-Id: <20070927131019.09ABF2EC6B@seba.sebabeach.org> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:10:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cgen-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cgen-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-q3/txt/msg00009.txt.bz2 Hi. I realize I'm coming into this discussion pretty late ... CGEN isn't (or wasn't) GPLv, it's GPLv + 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, 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 /cpu or /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 ?