Re: RFC: Contributing the CGEN source to the FSF

[Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>]

Hi Doug,

> CGEN isn't (or wasn't) GPLv<x>, it's GPLv<x> + autoconf-like-exception.
> Question: How will things look in the brave new world?
> I see from src/cgen/COPYING.CGEN cgen is still copyright by Redhat
> and has the autoconf-like-exception.  How will COPYING.CGEN look
> after it's donated to the FSF?

Hmm, well given that the GCC project has not yet managed to get a clear answer 
from the FSF on this issue, I think that the safest thing to do is to try to 
contribute the sources under GPLv2+autoconf-like-exceptions and see if the 
binutils project is willing to accept them under these terms.

As binutils maintainer I could accept them like this, although I will check 
with the FSF first to see how they feel about it.  If they insist on 
gplv3-or-nothing then I guess we hold off on the contribution until the 
exceptions issue can be resolved.


> 'nother question: If a .cpu file is pure GPLv<x>, does
> "As a special exception, Red Hat gives unlimited permission to copy,
> distribute and modify the code that is the output of CGEN." work?
> Seems like a useful FAQ entry if nothing else.  Things have changed
> and I've long since forgotten the issues.

Hmm, not sure myself.  Seems like we need a license lawyer.

*sigh*  All I wanted to do was be a good open source advocate and contribute a 
tool to the community... :-)

Cheers
  Nick