[newlib-cygwin] Add RISC-V port for newlib
Thu Aug 17 16:24:00 GMT 2017
Hmm, IANAL too, we will study if any problem to the license :)
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 7:11 AM, Jeff Johnston <email@example.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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On 08/16/2017 05:11 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> On 08/16/2017 05:01 PM, Jeff Johnston wrote:
>>>> commit 363dbb9e44d0101f29ec34cadd001893daab3fc6
>>>> Author: Kito Cheng <email@example.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
>>> 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
More information about the Newlib