This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] doloop_optimize miscompiles openssl
- To: Franz Sirl <Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] doloop_optimize miscompiles openssl
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 16:57:22 -0600
- cc: Geoff Keating <geoffk at cygnus dot com>, mhayes at cygnus dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Reply-To: law at cygnus dot com
In message <email@example.com>you write:
> Content-Type: text/plain
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Geoff Keating wrote:
> > > From: Franz Sirl <Franz.Sirlfirstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > OK to commit the patch and the testcases?
> > The patch is OK.
> > The testcases are not. I believe they are under this license:
> > * Copyright remains Eric Young's, and as such any Copyright notices in
> > * the code are not to be removed.
> > * If this package is used in a product, Eric Young should be given
> > attribution * as the author of the parts of the library used.
> > * This can be in the form of a textual message at program startup or
> > * in documentation (online or textual) provided with the package.
> > *
> > * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> > * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> > * are met:
> > * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the copyright
> > * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> > * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> > * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> > * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution
> > * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this softwa
> > * must display the following acknowledgement:
> > * "This product includes cryptographic software written by
> > * Eric Young (email@example.com)"
> > * The word 'cryptographic' can be left out if the rouines from the
> > library * being used are not cryptographic related :-).
> > * 4. If you include any Windows specific code (or a derivative thereof)
> > from * the apps directory (application code) you must include an
> > acknowledgement: * "This product includes software written by Tim Huds
> > (firstname.lastname@example.org)" *
> > * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY ERIC YOUNG ``AS IS'' AND
> > * ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
> > * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
> > PURPOSE * ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR OR CONTRIBUTORS B
> > LIABLE * FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
> > CONSEQUENTIAL * DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
> > SUBSTITUTE GOODS * OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINES
> > 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.
> > *
> > * The licence and distribution terms for any publically available versio
> > or * derivative of this code cannot be changed. i.e. this code cannot
> > simply be * copied and put under another distribution licence
> > * [including the GNU Public Licence.]
> > Clause (3) above is not acceptable for code contributed to the GCC
> > project, even as testcases. Also, you've removed the copyright
> > notices, which is generally not allowed.
> Hmm, I'm no license expert, but I think the license has been relaxed, since
> the current LICENSE talks about "BSD-style", which is acceptable for GCC
> AFAIK, or?
No, it's not acceptable. The author would have to relax the license. Just
because Berkeley relaxed their license doesn't mean the relaxation applies
to other folks that used their license.