[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
>>