This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: FSF Policy re. inclusion of source code from other projects in GCC
On 3/17/06, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> 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.
Richard.