This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, libgcc] Fix licenses on several files
- From: Marcus Shawcroft <marcus dot shawcroft at arm dot com>
- To: Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim at kugelworks dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram at google dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 12:10:42 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, libgcc] Fix licenses on several files
- References: <0CB812AC-E3A0-433D-BFC1-07FDF6B637C6 at kugelworks dot com>
On 28/07/13 23:03, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
While verifying license compliance for GCC and its libraries I noticed that several libgcc files that end up in the final library are licensed under GPL-3.0+ instead of GPL-3.0-with-GCC-exception.
This is, obviously, was not the intention of developers who just copied wrong boilerplate text, and this patch fixes the oversights.
Just to avoid any possible fallout from this issue ...
Marcus, did you and ARM intend to license config/aarch64/sfp-machine.h and config/aarch64/sync-cache.c under GPL-3.0-with-GCC-exception?
Our intention was to use GPL3.0 with GCC exception and therefore have no
objection to this change, however I have no idea what the appropriate
process is in FSF/GCC for such a change.
Sriram, did you and Google intend to license config/i386/cpuinfo.c under GPL-3.0-with-GCC-exception?
Richard, did you and Red Hat intend to license config/ia64/unwind-ia64.h under GPL-3.0-with-GCC-exception?
DJ, did you and Red Hat intend to license config/mips/vr4120-div.S under GPL-3.0-with-GCC-exception?
Once confirmed, I will apply this patch to all active branches: trunk, gcc-4_8-branch and gcc-4_7-branch.