This is the mail archive of the
cgen@sourceware.org
mailing list for the CGEN project.
Re: RFC: Contributing the CGEN source to the FSF
- From: Doug Evans <dje at sebabeach dot org>
- To: nickc at redhat dot com
- Cc: cgen at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 06:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: RFC: Contributing the CGEN source to the FSF
Hi. I realize I'm coming into this discussion pretty late ...
CGEN isn't (or wasn't) GPLv<x>, it's GPLv<x> + autoconf-like-exception.
Question: How will things look in the brave new world?
I see from src/cgen/COPYING.CGEN cgen is still copyright by Redhat
and has the autoconf-like-exception. How will COPYING.CGEN look
after it's donated to the FSF?
btw, while we're on the subject, and apologies for mixing two threads
in one but they seem related.
'nother question: If a .cpu file is pure GPLv<x>, does
"As a special exception, Red Hat gives unlimited permission to copy,
distribute and modify the code that is the output of CGEN." work?
Seems like a useful FAQ entry if nothing else. Things have changed
and I've long since forgotten the issues.
Nick writes:
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> I would like to have cgen sources contributed to the FSF. I am
> prepared to do the work, but does anyone have any objections or
> concerns ? If I can get agreement to the change then I will go
> ahead with it as soon as possible.
>
> One notable consequence of contributing the sources is that the
> source license would change from GPL version 2 to GPL version 3, in
> line with current FSF policy.
>
> Another consequence would be that we could remove one of the cpu/
> directories (either <toplevel>/cpu or <toplevel>/cgen/cpu, I am not
> sure which would be better).
>
> What do people think - is this a good idea ?
>
> Cheers
> Nick
>
> PS. The impetus for this change has come from the FSF initiative to
> change all of their projects sources over to the GPLv3 (or LGPLv3).
> This includes both the binutils and GDB projects, so it would be
> consistent if the cgen sources were changed over as well. (They do
> not have to be, of course). So, if the cgen sources are going to
> be changed to GPLv3 then why not contribute them at the same time ?