From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-74.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-74.mimecast.com [170.10.133.74]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDE2E3856DE7 for ; Fri, 6 May 2022 13:44:56 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org EDE2E3856DE7 Received: from mail-yw1-f199.google.com (mail-yw1-f199.google.com [209.85.128.199]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-616-42ClvVeqMGKCx_dPAC-Wuw-1; Fri, 06 May 2022 09:44:55 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 42ClvVeqMGKCx_dPAC-Wuw-1 Received: by mail-yw1-f199.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-2f8d487f575so65282557b3.5 for ; Fri, 06 May 2022 06:44:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=O9ANPP7HTIAtb0l1vZCoFJXRwFaKz0GPnST7ZdWTPiI=; b=MwD0/kMjy6zuf4rr/ml9With0CoTiNXl2PPT0nd9qp8dajaCmDVKSBn7OgEDDBEiGz P5LIKeEkZp0fiCjI+RIOe4Tu6kszz11N+gutFQKGZReua9q5n13KPwaTcvU+odBZlQCT yEZoEWbqZh2rgScG/ZZAqGJ//FaX4lzZV73S81cqY/xnWxeO3M1yrfgXaNu0JynmzJmU CymB0vpCAtjavkpPqAZLORDCZHPZ+K7V2Y1gLFYSIn0o5Zbvc5g3CCE1otJ/ysQ8v5jS tvPzhO2w4Yth5Q5Ft+tzw5B0tF2FHERWcz+86G+MCtgSIVqOUh2umyz2oENNaaqX6LiU byIQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531UPNNG9AZk2+tshCvg4onYQIyu5YhyGtUFIiuG00vPY8J9uIfa iBC/9jnp82oeyLa1a4xlE9zGp9P+/96QQ034kTkZsf9mTPd5LfQOrCBH4knvd90Z4lScqRfM41n wHRL7kdsOfBCBN6YMXwlQqRhC7JI8dqM= X-Received: by 2002:a25:858a:0:b0:648:dfcd:ac60 with SMTP id x10-20020a25858a000000b00648dfcdac60mr2475502ybk.320.1651844694945; Fri, 06 May 2022 06:44:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwr88Gm2OgQck5BuG71TKAGRK/bWb02EbIyLu0pvRzzqz7nGlfw5NIcNMsVxTjq4KHCryJwu6R674c81+JmX2I= X-Received: by 2002:a25:858a:0:b0:648:dfcd:ac60 with SMTP id x10-20020a25858a000000b00648dfcdac60mr2475493ybk.320.1651844694741; Fri, 06 May 2022 06:44:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220428123725.2354675-1-jwakely@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: From: Jonathan Wakely Date: Fri, 6 May 2022 14:44:43 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] libstdc++: Update documentation about copyright and GPL notices in tests To: "Koning, Paul" Cc: "libstdc++" , GCC Patches X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, KAM_SHORT, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libstdc++ mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 13:44:58 -0000 I've pushed this to trunk now. On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 at 18:02, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 at 17:45, Koning, Paul via Libstdc++ > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 28, 2022, at 8:37 AM, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > > > > I intend to commit this patch soon. This isn't changing the policy, just > > > adjusting the docs to match the current policy. > > > > > > I'm open to suggestions for better ways to phrase the second sentence, > > > clarifying that our tests generally have nothing novel or "authored". > > > > > > -- >8 -- > > > > > > There is no need to require FSF copyright for tests that are just > > > "self-evident" ways to check the API and behaviour of the library. > > > This is consistent with tests for the compiler, which do not have > > > copyright and licence notices either. > > > > So is the theory that "self-evident" documents are in the public domain for that reason? > > Yes. > > Let's look at a test I added this week: > libstdc++-v3/testsuite/30_threads/packaged_task/cons/deduction.cc > It has a copyright notice because (as I said in the commit log) it was > copied from an existing test that has one. But what part of that file > constituted original authorship? That code does nothing useful, it > doesn't even link. All it does is construct objects and verify that > the compiler deduced the correct type, which verifies that the library > has defined the deduction guides correctly. > > Let's look at another one: > libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/unique_ptr/comparison/constexpr.cc > What part of this is copyrightable? Is it where I create some > variables, or performs a series of repetitive and redundant > comparisons on them, or both? > This could almost be machine generated, and I assert that it's not > meaningful or useful or sensible to consider it as a copyrighted work. > So I didn't bother putting the notices on this one. > > > Or is the policy that for such file it is fine for the copyright to be held by the author (which is the default when no assignment is made)? And a similar question applies to the license aspect also. > > > > I think I understand the intent, and that seems to make sense, but I'm wondering if it has been verified by the appropriate FSF IP lawyers. > > If there's a concern, why haven't they raised it for the compiler's > own testsuite? Why should libstdc++ tests have copyright notices or > GPL notices when gcc tests don't? > > I count 83 *.[cChm] files under gcc/testsuite with a GPL notice, out > of some 64 THOUSAND files. The number with FSF copyright notices is > around 1100, e.g. gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/sparc/ultrasp2.c is > copyright FSF, but that seems ludicrous (yes, I know it says it's > simplified from another file which is copyright FSF, but so what ... a > left shift operation is not copyrightable).