libsim licensing (and bfd by extension)

libsim licensing (and bfd by extension)

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 930 bytes --]

the current sim/ subdir lacks an upfront statement as to its licensing (which 
is to say there is no COPYING file).  some sim-subdirs even have their own 
COPYING file.  if we go by the source files, the overall license appears to be 
GPL-3 (some are GPL-2+).

what i think would be nice is if the libsim interface was granted an exception 
to be used under the LGPL-3.  by itself, this wouldnt be of value because 
libsim requires libbfd which is under the GPL-3.  so there would need to be a 
minor grant where libbfd would not incur GPL-3 on everything else when it is 
being pulled in purely for libsim's needs.  obviously this would not apply if 
the code linking against libsim also used bfd symbols directly.

while libsim also uses libiberty, that is under LGPL-2.1, so that's done.

does this have any chance of happening ?  or should i just say screw it and 
post a toplevel sim/COPYING patch ;).
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: libsim licensing (and bfd by extension)

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 07:52:14PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> does this have any chance of happening ?  or should i just say screw it and 
> post a toplevel sim/COPYING patch ;).

Pretty much, no.  The FSF is always very resistant to a GPL -> LGPL
switch and you haven't given any reason that would fit the FSF's
goals.  Also bits of sim are copyright others besides the FSF.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Re: libsim licensing (and bfd by extension)

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1121 bytes --]

On Tuesday 04 May 2010 23:12:28 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 07:52:14PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > does this have any chance of happening ?  or should i just say screw it
> > and post a toplevel sim/COPYING patch ;).
> 
> Pretty much, no.  The FSF is always very resistant to a GPL -> LGPL
> switch and you haven't given any reason that would fit the FSF's
> goals.  Also bits of sim are copyright others besides the FSF.

the open source group at my company has created an open source simulator in 
parallel to an older existing closed source simulator.  the purpose would be 
to get the proprietary closed source product to stop using its closed source 
simulator and convert to the open source sim.  but there isnt incentive to 
convert the rest of the product stack over to open source (yet?), and 
obviously linking in a GPL libsim wouldnt work in this situation.

oh well, we still have access to the GDB machine interface, so the end goal 
can still be accomplished albeit not as cleanly.  assuming we can still 
convince internal people to do the conversion.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: libsim licensing (and bfd by extension)

[Robin Getz]

On Tue 4 May 2010 23:12, Daniel Jacobowitz pondered:
> Also bits of sim are copyright others besides the FSF.

I didn't think that was possible?

(but - as you state - I do see lots of copyright ARM, Cygnus Solutions, Sun 
Microsystems, European Space Agency, etc in the sim sources).

Doesn't the sim require a copyright assignment to the FSF (like the rest of 
the gdb/binutils does?)

Re: libsim licensing (and bfd by extension)

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 02:24:25PM -0400, Robin Getz wrote:
> On Tue 4 May 2010 23:12, Daniel Jacobowitz pondered:
> > Also bits of sim are copyright others besides the FSF.
> 
> I didn't think that was possible?
> 
> (but - as you state - I do see lots of copyright ARM, Cygnus Solutions, Sun 
> Microsystems, European Space Agency, etc in the sim sources).
> 
> Doesn't the sim require a copyright assignment to the FSF (like the rest of 
> the gdb/binutils does?)

We'd like it to, but some things were not assigned to the FSF when
they were originally contributed.  Beyond that, I don't know the
history.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Re: libsim licensing (and bfd by extension)

[Robin Getz]

On Fri 7 May 2010 14:25, Daniel Jacobowitz pondered:
> On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 02:24:25PM -0400, Robin Getz wrote:
> > On Tue 4 May 2010 23:12, Daniel Jacobowitz pondered:
> > > Also bits of sim are copyright others besides the FSF.
> > 
> > I didn't think that was possible?
> > 
> > (but - as you state - I do see lots of copyright ARM, Cygnus Solutions,
> > Sun Microsystems, European Space Agency, etc in the sim sources).
> > 
> > Doesn't the sim require a copyright assignment to the FSF (like the 
> > rest of the gdb/binutils does?)
> 
> We'd like it to, but some things were not assigned to the FSF when
> they were originally contributed.  Beyond that, I don't know the
> history.

It's easy to remove them now. :)

If people want it to be added back - it's easy for them to sign the proper 
forms.

I admit - a little Draconian - but it would get it to where you wanted it to 
be.

Besides - some of the files which are not copyright FSF - aren't released 
under the "GPL 2 or later"...

common/cgen-fpu.h
common/cgen-accfp.c
common/cgen-fpu.c

That needs to be fixed/resolved - doesn't it?

Re: libsim licensing (and bfd by extension)

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Robin Getz <rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org> writes:

> [...]
>> We'd like it to, but some things were not assigned to the FSF when
>> they were originally contributed.  Beyond that, I don't know the
>> history.

> It's easy to remove them now. :) If people want it to be added back
> - it's easy for them to sign the proper forms.

For some values of "easy".

> Besides - some of the files which are not copyright FSF - aren't released 
> under the "GPL 2 or later"...
>
> common/cgen-fpu.h
> common/cgen-accfp.c
> common/cgen-fpu.c
>
> That needs to be fixed/resolved - doesn't it?

Red Hat has been in gradual negotiation with the FSF to donate cgen
etc. over, but not much progress has occurred lately.  Perhaps a
gdb/binutils fsf contact can inquire for us?

- FChE