Re: [newlib-cygwin] Add RISC-V port for newlib

Re: [newlib-cygwin] Add RISC-V port for newlib

[Eric Blake]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2397 bytes --]

On 08/16/2017 05:11 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 08/16/2017 05:01 PM, Jeff Johnston wrote:
>> https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=newlib-cygwin.git;h=363dbb9e44d0101f29ec34cadd001893daab3fc6
>>
>> commit 363dbb9e44d0101f29ec34cadd001893daab3fc6
>> Author: Kito Cheng <kito@andestech.com>
>> Date:   Thu Jul 27 16:44:22 2017 +0800
>>
> 
>>  25 files changed, 7198 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> That's a lot of code in one patch; is it something that can be logically
> split into smaller, easier-to-review portions?

Hmm, I see now that I attempted to reply to the commit bot, rather than
the original message; so at this point, any changes need to be followup
patches (and you can't split what has already been pushed).  Which
leaves my question:

> 
>>
>> diff --git a/COPYING.NEWLIB b/COPYING.NEWLIB
>> index 9b4c569..942c90a 100644
>> --- a/COPYING.NEWLIB
>> +++ b/COPYING.NEWLIB
>> @@ -1133,3 +1133,16 @@ DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
>>  THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
>>  (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF
>>  THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>> +
>> +(49) - SiFive Inc. (riscv-* targets)
>> +
>> +Copyright (c) 2017  SiFive Inc. All rights reserved.
> 
> I'm not a lawyer, but how can all rights be reserved if if it open
> source?  This claim is incongruous with:
> 
>> +
>> +This copyrighted material is made available to anyone wishing to use,
>> +modify, copy, or redistribute it subject to the terms and conditions
>> +of the BSD License.   This program is distributed in the hope that
>> +it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY expressed or implied,
>> +including the implied warranties of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR
>> +A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  A copy of this license is available at
>> +http://www.opensource.org/licenses.
> 
> this disclaimer.
> 
> "the BSD License" is ambiguous; there have been at least three major
> variants (2-clause, 3-clause, and 4-clause), and the 4-clause version is
> not compatible with GPL, so it matters that you be more precise on which
> license is intended.  (These days, most people use 2-clause).
> 
-- 
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 619 bytes --]

Re: [newlib-cygwin] Add RISC-V port for newlib

[Jeff Johnston]

IANAL, but Red Hat lawyers are.  See the first license in
COPYING.NEWLIB which they originally crafted.
I cannot fault SIFive for following that template.

The referenced site refers the name "BSD license" to the 2-clause and
3-clause license (4-clause does not come into play).
The 3 clause is assumed in the Red Hat case and I also assume the
SIFive case.  I do not know if the site originally
referred to the 3-clause as default when the lawyers drafted that.  I
can clarify if needed that it is the 3-clause.

-- Jeff J.

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 08/16/2017 05:11 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 08/16/2017 05:01 PM, Jeff Johnston wrote:
>>> https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=newlib-cygwin.git;h=363dbb9e44d0101f29ec34cadd001893daab3fc6
>>>
>>> commit 363dbb9e44d0101f29ec34cadd001893daab3fc6
>>> Author: Kito Cheng <kito@andestech.com>
>>> Date:   Thu Jul 27 16:44:22 2017 +0800
>>>
>>
>>>  25 files changed, 7198 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> That's a lot of code in one patch; is it something that can be logically
>> split into smaller, easier-to-review portions?
>
> Hmm, I see now that I attempted to reply to the commit bot, rather than
> the original message; so at this point, any changes need to be followup
> patches (and you can't split what has already been pushed).  Which
> leaves my question:
>
>>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/COPYING.NEWLIB b/COPYING.NEWLIB
>>> index 9b4c569..942c90a 100644
>>> --- a/COPYING.NEWLIB
>>> +++ b/COPYING.NEWLIB
>>> @@ -1133,3 +1133,16 @@ DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
>>>  THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
>>>  (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF
>>>  THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>>> +
>>> +(49) - SiFive Inc. (riscv-* targets)
>>> +
>>> +Copyright (c) 2017  SiFive Inc. All rights reserved.
>>
>> I'm not a lawyer, but how can all rights be reserved if if it open
>> source?  This claim is incongruous with:
>>
>>> +
>>> +This copyrighted material is made available to anyone wishing to use,
>>> +modify, copy, or redistribute it subject to the terms and conditions
>>> +of the BSD License.   This program is distributed in the hope that
>>> +it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY expressed or implied,
>>> +including the implied warranties of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR
>>> +A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  A copy of this license is available at
>>> +http://www.opensource.org/licenses.
>>
>> this disclaimer.
>>
>> "the BSD License" is ambiguous; there have been at least three major
>> variants (2-clause, 3-clause, and 4-clause), and the 4-clause version is
>> not compatible with GPL, so it matters that you be more precise on which
>> license is intended.  (These days, most people use 2-clause).
>>
> --
> Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
> Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3266
> Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org
>

Re: [newlib-cygwin] Add RISC-V port for newlib

[Kito Cheng]

Hi Jeff:

Hmm, IANAL too, we will study if any problem to the license :)

Thanks!

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 7:11 AM, Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com> wrote:
> IANAL, but Red Hat lawyers are.  See the first license in
> COPYING.NEWLIB which they originally crafted.
> I cannot fault SIFive for following that template.
>
> The referenced site refers the name "BSD license" to the 2-clause and
> 3-clause license (4-clause does not come into play).
> The 3 clause is assumed in the Red Hat case and I also assume the
> SIFive case.  I do not know if the site originally
> referred to the 3-clause as default when the lawyers drafted that.  I
> can clarify if needed that it is the 3-clause.
>
> -- Jeff J.
>
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 08/16/2017 05:11 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> On 08/16/2017 05:01 PM, Jeff Johnston wrote:
>>>> https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=newlib-cygwin.git;h=363dbb9e44d0101f29ec34cadd001893daab3fc6
>>>>
>>>> commit 363dbb9e44d0101f29ec34cadd001893daab3fc6
>>>> Author: Kito Cheng <kito@andestech.com>
>>>> Date:   Thu Jul 27 16:44:22 2017 +0800
>>>>
>>>
>>>>  25 files changed, 7198 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> That's a lot of code in one patch; is it something that can be logically
>>> split into smaller, easier-to-review portions?
>>
>> Hmm, I see now that I attempted to reply to the commit bot, rather than
>> the original message; so at this point, any changes need to be followup
>> patches (and you can't split what has already been pushed).  Which
>> leaves my question:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/COPYING.NEWLIB b/COPYING.NEWLIB
>>>> index 9b4c569..942c90a 100644
>>>> --- a/COPYING.NEWLIB
>>>> +++ b/COPYING.NEWLIB
>>>> @@ -1133,3 +1133,16 @@ DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
>>>>  THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
>>>>  (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF
>>>>  THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>>>> +
>>>> +(49) - SiFive Inc. (riscv-* targets)
>>>> +
>>>> +Copyright (c) 2017  SiFive Inc. All rights reserved.
>>>
>>> I'm not a lawyer, but how can all rights be reserved if if it open
>>> source?  This claim is incongruous with:
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +This copyrighted material is made available to anyone wishing to use,
>>>> +modify, copy, or redistribute it subject to the terms and conditions
>>>> +of the BSD License.   This program is distributed in the hope that
>>>> +it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY expressed or implied,
>>>> +including the implied warranties of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR
>>>> +A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  A copy of this license is available at
>>>> +http://www.opensource.org/licenses.
>>>
>>> this disclaimer.
>>>
>>> "the BSD License" is ambiguous; there have been at least three major
>>> variants (2-clause, 3-clause, and 4-clause), and the 4-clause version is
>>> not compatible with GPL, so it matters that you be more precise on which
>>> license is intended.  (These days, most people use 2-clause).
>>>
>> --
>> Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
>> Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3266
>> Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org
>>

Re: [newlib-cygwin] Add RISC-V port for newlib

[Jeff Johnston]

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Kito Cheng <kito.cheng@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jeff:
>
> We've discussion about the license issue today, how do you think about if we
> change to FreeBSD license for unambiguously refers to the 2-clause license?
>

It's your license so you can choose that if you want.    You will have
to get agreement among all
the contributors.  Once done, you can send a patch to the list.

I have made a snapshot today as there was an outstanding request for one.

Regards,

-- Jeff J.


> Thanks :)
>
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 7:11 AM, Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> IANAL, but Red Hat lawyers are.  See the first license in
>> COPYING.NEWLIB which they originally crafted.
>> I cannot fault SIFive for following that template.
>>
>> The referenced site refers the name "BSD license" to the 2-clause and
>> 3-clause license (4-clause does not come into play).
>> The 3 clause is assumed in the Red Hat case and I also assume the
>> SIFive case.  I do not know if the site originally
>> referred to the 3-clause as default when the lawyers drafted that.  I
>> can clarify if needed that it is the 3-clause.
>>
>> -- Jeff J.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > On 08/16/2017 05:11 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> >> On 08/16/2017 05:01 PM, Jeff Johnston wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=newlib-cygwin.git;h=363dbb9e44d0101f29ec34cadd001893daab3fc6
>> >>>
>> >>> commit 363dbb9e44d0101f29ec34cadd001893daab3fc6
>> >>> Author: Kito Cheng <kito@andestech.com>
>> >>> Date:   Thu Jul 27 16:44:22 2017 +0800
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>>  25 files changed, 7198 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> That's a lot of code in one patch; is it something that can be
>> >> logically
>> >> split into smaller, easier-to-review portions?
>> >
>> > Hmm, I see now that I attempted to reply to the commit bot, rather than
>> > the original message; so at this point, any changes need to be followup
>> > patches (and you can't split what has already been pushed).  Which
>> > leaves my question:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> diff --git a/COPYING.NEWLIB b/COPYING.NEWLIB
>> >>> index 9b4c569..942c90a 100644
>> >>> --- a/COPYING.NEWLIB
>> >>> +++ b/COPYING.NEWLIB
>> >>> @@ -1133,3 +1133,16 @@ DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
>> >>> HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
>> >>>  THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
>> >>>  (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
>> >>> OF
>> >>>  THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>> >>> +
>> >>> +(49) - SiFive Inc. (riscv-* targets)
>> >>> +
>> >>> +Copyright (c) 2017  SiFive Inc. All rights reserved.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not a lawyer, but how can all rights be reserved if if it open
>> >> source?  This claim is incongruous with:
>> >>
>> >>> +
>> >>> +This copyrighted material is made available to anyone wishing to use,
>> >>> +modify, copy, or redistribute it subject to the terms and conditions
>> >>> +of the BSD License.   This program is distributed in the hope that
>> >>> +it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY expressed or implied,
>> >>> +including the implied warranties of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR
>> >>> +A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  A copy of this license is available at
>> >>> +http://www.opensource.org/licenses.
>> >>
>> >> this disclaimer.
>> >>
>> >> "the BSD License" is ambiguous; there have been at least three major
>> >> variants (2-clause, 3-clause, and 4-clause), and the 4-clause version
>> >> is
>> >> not compatible with GPL, so it matters that you be more precise on
>> >> which
>> >> license is intended.  (These days, most people use 2-clause).
>> >>
>> > --
>> > Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
>> > Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3266
>> > Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org
>> >
>
>