From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18622 invoked by alias); 27 Sep 2007 16:17:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 18612 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Sep 2007 16:17:05 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:16:57 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l8RGGtlp024075 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:16:55 -0400 Received: from pobox.fab.redhat.com (pobox.fab.redhat.com [10.33.63.12]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l8RGGsEP009359; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:16:54 -0400 Received: from [10.33.6.16] (vpn-6-16.fab.redhat.com [10.33.6.16]) by pobox.fab.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l8RGGrdK021501; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:16:53 -0400 Message-ID: <46FBD795.6000106@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:17:00 -0000 From: Nick Clifton User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070718) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans CC: cgen@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: Contributing the CGEN source to the FSF References: <20070927131019.09ABF2EC6B@seba.sebabeach.org> In-Reply-To: <20070927131019.09ABF2EC6B@seba.sebabeach.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00013.txt.bz2 Hi Doug, > 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? Hmm, well given that the GCC project has not yet managed to get a clear answer from the FSF on this issue, I think that the safest thing to do is to try to contribute the sources under GPLv2+autoconf-like-exceptions and see if the binutils project is willing to accept them under these terms. As binutils maintainer I could accept them like this, although I will check with the FSF first to see how they feel about it. If they insist on gplv3-or-nothing then I guess we hold off on the contribution until the exceptions issue can be resolved. > '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. Hmm, not sure myself. Seems like we need a license lawyer. *sigh* All I wanted to do was be a good open source advocate and contribute a tool to the community... :-) Cheers Nick