This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, libgcc] Fix licenses on several files
- From: OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>
- To: Marcus Shawcroft <marcus dot shawcroft at arm dot com>
- Cc: Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim at kugelworks dot com>, 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 16:06:27 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, libgcc] Fix licenses on several files
- References: <0CB812AC-E3A0-433D-BFC1-07FDF6B637C6 at kugelworks dot com> <51F64DB2 dot 7030902 at arm dot com>
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 12:10:42PM +0100, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
> 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.
> >
To be sure it would be good idea to have check for this issue.
First question is which files need copyright exception?
Second is which files actually have this license.
As first approximation I used:
git grep "Section 7 of GPL version 3"
Is that list full or did I missed something?