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

[Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn at redhat dot com>]

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
>