From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 77726 invoked by alias); 26 May 2017 18:41:08 -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 76345 invoked by uid 89); 26 May 2017 18:41:08 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,FREEMAIL_REPLY,FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL,HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM,HK_RANDOM_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=person X-HELO: mail-yb0-f193.google.com Received: from mail-yb0-f193.google.com (HELO mail-yb0-f193.google.com) (209.85.213.193) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 May 2017 18:41:06 +0000 Received: by mail-yb0-f193.google.com with SMTP id d72so574777ybh.0 for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 11:41:10 -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=yGasD7uv+hRa91cKqgi+EnTowDscvbFxys48NsG0bIU=; b=qbUlEj+/E/sLqoPN5e8UIIZ1C5xX8IzkXqR3I8inwem5ozMVNI/ZxBXMqhOmlFPv1l bJMvRcz1t5VRO5bok4mYw5CKO9QwICKuAFt5AAA70V0pFiLcgt+Ue4LLzweK+Fx7dciO YlhhUBa9jNhmVKWlGEUWLtWXrUhVo0tpCQo6LBSjzym3KC/8btVIsAvU1ZnsceBfetyE dKvG4HER4u782qewYOyWbQuKQpEcv3nJUBe4nsTjY8kVKlCTOIYY95sbG/eOo2JrA3uR FWoTZMBZjm6OFOujRSX0weAbpzNMQVl3MPZ9DaTAK4RsC7WIPNtpqcP/haEG8qQn13Lf HLrQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAPjw00ZN2/bLry8phF1stwfuCeurMOfka5FwISxbGyQDHr2MKX n4IrTTCz7lR9QCcbKbKvYwwoEocu5Q== X-Received: by 10.37.45.33 with SMTP id t33mr1424837ybt.146.1495824068652; Fri, 26 May 2017 11:41:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.197.199 with HTTP; Fri, 26 May 2017 11:41:08 -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: Max Filippov Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 18:48:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC 2/5] gcc: xtensa: make configuration dynamic To: Ian Lance Taylor 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/msg02080.txt.bz2 On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > 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. Thanks, that's how I understood that. I've added a note to the plugin README: https://github.com/jcmvbkbc/xtensa-dynconfig/blob/master/README > 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. Sure I can add such requirement to this mechanism and implement that check. -- Thanks. -- Max