From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2753 invoked by alias); 26 May 2017 14:44:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 2733 invoked by uid 89); 26 May 2017 14:44:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=proprietary, enforcement, literally, person X-HELO: mail-yw0-f176.google.com Received: from mail-yw0-f176.google.com (HELO mail-yw0-f176.google.com) (209.85.161.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 May 2017 14:44:18 +0000 Received: by mail-yw0-f176.google.com with SMTP id l14so5555021ywk.1 for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 07:44:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dfp8CKRhk8LZs9K7zTZBKYfYcekB5TODuFHdEGxCWxs=; b=m/W3qas3/xJ6Cn3K2H9wGOwt2FqngmFdWlIBEpHHYFTMeQ2CzzAnFZj1o1WiMToNF4 eUlVuiKWzfNUYBAVuDMaxWSlUU3Qm2rjkJ+gWu3mHEQxchkgqEPtiLavb6vqbbdrOUd0 /6suQtyFIvpI6htGfETdEuQS8QmXZRMlD9BBo1tw5mS7yAgVJKHiV+lQjiV4Qt6/QRBq 3Bdv/aVegX8/znwWIkK+2mcoYxX7I09MkpPDQJJhNahFVl/W3nWi0XKA9ldswvEOqqUW xaKPr2/iFZFIpXy7zqYBzC8p11AaNfvlfsoiGNsBdJWn9+zWf/wZ+JEex7Ub50ExOPuw hbXw== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAsfAlhvcbGMtJwKVlEpkPeSCu0mNeWcJv0m+xubWF+SwonjCQP /esVCGd/eYPQJsCf0cwmW7ht2CL6rR6H X-Received: by 10.13.236.206 with SMTP id v197mr1780255ywe.296.1495809860478; Fri, 26 May 2017 07:44:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.129.88.7 with HTTP; Fri, 26 May 2017 07:44:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1495487362-18969-1-git-send-email-jcmvbkbc@gmail.com> <1495487362-18969-3-git-send-email-jcmvbkbc@gmail.com> From: "Ian Lance Taylor via gcc-patches" Reply-To: Ian Lance Taylor Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 15:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC 2/5] gcc: xtensa: make configuration dynamic To: Max Filippov Cc: "augustine.sterling@gmail.com" , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , "linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org" , Le-Chun Wu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-05/txt/msg02055.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Max Filippov wrote: > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:24 AM, augustine.sterling@gmail.com > wrote: > >> Please note that by using a plugin mechanism, there are licensing >> issues that come into play, that are different from the usual >> licensing issues. I would be absolutely sure that you all are OK with >> how the runtime exception applies to this new situation. > > All code used for building the configuration shared object is either GPL > (part of binutils) or MIT (xtensa configuration overlay), so it should be ok? You are in effect introducing a new kind of plugin mechanism. I won't comment on whether it should use the existing plugin mechanism or not, but it's important to stress that the GCC Runtime Library Exception (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.en.html) has rules that apply here. In effect, if you want to distribute the binary produced by GCC, all the plugins that you use must be available under a GPL-compatible license. The people to whom you distribute the binary produced by GCC must be able to themselves build the plugin used to create the binary. The plugin may not have any proprietary source code. One way that the GCC plugin mechanism makes that clear is by requiring the plugin to define a symbol named, literally, "plugin_is_GPL_compatible". While there is no enforcement mechanism as such, this ensures that the person creating the plugin acknowledges that at the very least the plugin is supposed to be under a GPL compatible license. I think that if you are going to introduce a new plugin mechanism, you should adopt the same approach. Ian