On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@airs.com> wrote: > Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> writes: > >> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 06:39:33PM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote: >>> the following patch adds a BRIG (binary representation of HSAIL) >>> representation description. It is within a single header file >>> describing the binary structures and constants of the format. >>> >>> The file comes from the HSA Foundation (I have only added the >>> HSA_BRIG_FORMAT_H macro and check and removed some weird comments >>> which are not present in proposed future versions of the file) and is >>> licensed under "University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License." >>> >>> The license is "GPL-compatible" according to FSF >>> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses) >>> so I believe we can have it in GCC. Nevertheless, it is not GPL and >>> there is no copyright assignment for it, but the situation is >>> hopefully analogous to some other libraries that have their upstream >>> elsewhere but we ship them as part of the GCC. >>> >>> In the previous posting of this patch >>> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg00721.html) I have >>> requested a permission from the steering committee to include this file >>> with a different upstream in GCC. I have not received an official >>> reply but since I have been chosen to be the HSA maintainer, I tend to >>> think there were no legal objections against HSA going forward, >>> including this file. > > Martin, could you ask the HSA Foundation or AMD or whoever if there is > any way they could remove the second requirement of the license? It > adds yet another case where anybody distributing GCC has to list yet > another copyright notice. > > Barring that, I would personally prefer that you write your own version > of this header file, defining the constants and structs that you need. > That's basically what we've done for ELF and COFF and Mach-O, several > times over. For example, libiberty/simple-object-elf.c.
Not sure how that would end up with sth that is not considered a derivative (esp. if not clean-room "duplicated" from other available documentation). So if that's ok then it must be ok to basically strip the license and put ours on it doing some formatting / re-ordering (or renaming). That said - stupid copyright stuff (for something that is maybe not even copyrightable). Richard. > Barring that, I agree with Jakub that this looks like something that > should go in the top-level include subdirectory rather than the gcc > subdirectory. > > Ian
