This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: FSF Policy re. inclusion of source code from other projects in GCC

On 3/17/06, Mark Mitchell <> wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
> > Remembering the patches from Joseph these were from a different part
> > of GLIBC than I imported.  I imported parts of sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32 and
> > dbl-64 which contain C implementations of C99 math intrinsics such as
> > sin and cos.  The flt-32 parts are public domain as in
> >
> > /*
> >  * ====================================================
> >  * Copyright (C) 1993 by Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
> >  *
> >  * Developed at SunPro, a Sun Microsystems, Inc. business.
> >  * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this
> >  * software is freely granted, provided that this notice
> >  * is preserved.
> >  * ====================================================
> >  */
> >
> > while the dbl-64 parts are LGPL and so subject to the change to GPL
> > + exception.  I don't know if these parts of GLIBC are covered by RMS's
> > permission, it is probably advisable to ask.
> I think that we need to ask RMS specifically about this.  Would you
> please send a message to RMS, and copy the SC list (is that address
> public?  I'm not sure if I'm supposed to give it out, ask me privately
> if you don't know it) on the mail.  Explain the situation, including
> what code you're importing and why you want an exception.
> My guess is that it's OK to include the Sun code, since it's in the
> public domain.  My guess is also that, without explicit permission from
> RMS, you have to leave the LGPL on the dbl-64 code, since it doesn't
> sound like that is covered by "software floating-point emulation".  That
> means that people who linked with this library would find that the LGPL
> applies, which is contrary to our general policy that binaries produced
> by GCC are not subject to GPL/LGPL issues.  So, I think you should
> remove the dbl-64 code until this is resolved, or at least prevent it
> from being compiled by removing whatever Makefile bits compile it.  My
> experience is that it usually takes some time for RMS to grant a license
> exception, and that he may not choose to do it.

I will do so early next week and send a patch to disable dbl-64 compilation
for now.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]