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

[Eric Blake <eblake at redhat dot com>]

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: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature