Re: 32-bit PowerPC reference test platform
On 07/11/2012 02:15, David Edelsohn wrote: On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: Ok, does this mean that there is no primary and secondary target in GCC that covers PowerPC Book E with ELF and EABI? If I change something in this area is there at least a well known tertiary target? GCC is used for a lot of Freescale products in the embedded systems market. What is necessary to make e.g. powerpc-unknown-eabi a secondary target? Some people post testsuite results for powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu on the testsuite mailinglist -- one from Debain and I do not know the affiliation of the other. powerpc-apple-darwin also is 32 bit. And IBM tests 32 bit multilib although GCC is built as 64 bit. I thought that Codesourcery tested 32 bit PowerPC at some point in the past. You need to ask Freescale why they are not more engaged. Thanks, David Codesourcery (and therefore Mentor Graphics) certainly distribute (and sell) PowerPC ELF EABI gcc toolchains for 32-bit PowerPC devices. I don't know how many different types they use in testing, but I expect they have a number of systems. I'm sure they'd be interested in your changes.
RE: Defining scheduling resource constraint
> -Original Message- > From: Bernd Schmidt [mailto:ber...@codesourcery.com] > Sent: 06 November 2012 17:12 > To: Paulo Matos > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint > > On 11/06/2012 05:50 PM, Paulo Matos wrote: > > > I am following your advice and using sched.reorg to remove the > > instruction from the ready list. What I am doing is checking the > > register written in ready[n_ready - 1] (if any) and look for the > > remainder of the ready list for insns writing to the same register. > > That probably won't work, you'll need to keep track of which registers > have already been written in the current cycle - that needs to be > updated in the variable_issue hook. > I was assuming that ready[*n_readyp - 1] was the next scheduled insn and therefore I only needed to compare the register writes of all insns from ready[0] to ready[*n_readyp -2]. > > If I find one such insn, in index k, then I remove the insn by > > moving > all insns from 0 -> k-1 to 1-> k (essentially shifting right all > instructions below k. > > If you also put it back into the position in the array that has become > free, that sounds about right. > > > However this is getting me into trouble with an ice. I feel like I > should instead be moving the instruction from ready to pending instead > of simply removing it from ready, however I have no access to > Haifa-sched.c internals from the backend. > > Well, if you're doing it right, you're not really removing the > instructions, just reordering the array and returning a different value > for n_ready. Look at c6x.c for some example code. > Yes, the reordering works fine. The problem is when I change the value of *n_readyp. The c6x port returns n_ready (which for me doesn't make sense since the max insns I can schedule in a cycle is 2 which is my issue_rate), but doesn't change *n_readyp. If I don't change *n_readyp I am not actually 'removing' the insn from ready but simply reordering it. The docs say I can modify *n_readyp but any attempt to do so is causing an ice at schedule_block with instruction: gcc_assert(ready.n_ready) after the call to queue_to_ready(&ready); I will try to study haifa-sched.c to see what the problem is. -- Paulo Matos
Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint
On 11/07/2012 11:41 AM, Paulo Matos wrote: > Yes, the reordering works fine. The problem is when I change the > value of *n_readyp. The c6x port returns n_ready (which for me > doesn't make sense since the max insns I can schedule in a cycle is 2 > which is my issue_rate), but doesn't change *n_readyp. Look at the caller of the hook - they check the return value to see if any more instructions can be issued. If yes, the one highest on the list is picked. > If I don't > change *n_readyp I am not actually 'removing' the insn from ready but > simply reordering it. The docs say I can modify *n_readyp but any > attempt to do so is causing an ice at schedule_block with > instruction: gcc_assert(ready.n_ready) after the call to > queue_to_ready(&ready); Yes... I seem to remember the documentation is just wrong for that hook (and the interface is somewhat broken). As you noted, you can't just remove insns from the ready list without moving them somewhere else. Bernd
Questions regarding licensing issues
Dear all, this is a repeat of an email to licens...@fsf.org; unfortunately I didn't get any response from there. I'm the author of a high-level synthesis tool (sort of hardware compiler) that is about to be commercialized. The tool will be available under a non-GPL compatible license. I have a few questions to make sure that I will not violate the GPL,v3: 1. My tool is structured as follows: - A frontend that translates GIMPLE dumps to my own N-Address Code (NAC) textual representation. - A module that generates CDFGs (expressed as Graphviz graphs) from NAC translation units. - A backend that generates a hardware description in the VHDL language. These are three different/separate tools (distinct executables). 1. Is it possible to use this scheme and not violate the GPL,v3 for GCC? If I use GIMPLE dumps generated by "-fdump-tree-all" I think there is a violation (correct me if not). Thus this module should be FLOSS/GPL'ed, right? 2. Does this apply to plugins? I think that in Runtime Library Exception FAQ ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1-faq.html ) you forbid the use of external use of textual forms of GCC's internal representation(s). Actually this is detailed in the answer to: "Why is compiler intermediate representation excluded from the definition of "Target Code?" I have thought of a way to adhere to the GPL,v3: AFAICS it is legal to develop a NAC backend for GCC, as an abstract machine target. The backend would of course be open-sourced under GPL,v3. Then it would be used to generate the corresponding assembly program, which would be then fed to the proprietary software. The rest of the process is similar to having proprietary software binaries generated by GCC. Am I correct? Best regards, Nikolaos Kavvadias
RE: Defining scheduling resource constraint
> -Original Message- > From: Bernd Schmidt [mailto:ber...@codesourcery.com] > Sent: 07 November 2012 10:48 > To: Paulo Matos > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint > > Yes... I seem to remember the documentation is just wrong for that hook > (and the interface is somewhat broken). As you noted, you can't just > remove insns from the ready list without moving them somewhere else. > But if I can't remove an insn from the ready list (by 'remove' I mean reorder such that gcc understands that the insn should be postponed to the next cycle) in the reorder hook, I will give the adjust priorities hook a try and maybe here I can ensure that two insns that write to the same registers do not have the same priority. -- Paulo Matos
Re: Questions regarding licensing issues
On 11/7/2012 5:52 AM, nk...@physics.auth.gr wrote: 1. Is it possible to use this scheme and not violate the GPL,v3 for GCC? If I use GIMPLE dumps generated by "-fdump-tree-all" I think there is a violation (correct me if not). Thus this module should be FLOSS/GPL'ed, right? You can't expect to get legal advice from a list like this, and if you do get advice, you can't trust it. You have to consult an attorney to evaluate issues like this, and even then you can't get guaranteed definitive advice. Copyright issues are complex, as Supap Kirtsaeng is discovering in his trip to the supreme court. Furthermore, no one has any interest in assuring you that what you are doing is OK in advance. The GPL is about encouraging people to use the GPL, and the gcc community does not really have an interest in making it easier for people to follow some other path. This may seem a little harsh, but it's (somewhat inevitably) the way things are. The only thing that would assure you that what you are planning is OK is a specific intepretation of how the GPL applies by the copyright holder. But this is not going to happen. Random non-expert opinions by folks who are not attorneys may help confirm your intepretation, but it's risky to rely on such opinions. BTW, it is no surprise that you got no response from licens...@fsf.org. Robert Dewar
Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint
On 11/07/2012 12:08 PM, Paulo Matos wrote: > >> -Original Message- >> From: Bernd Schmidt [mailto:ber...@codesourcery.com] >> Sent: 07 November 2012 10:48 >> To: Paulo Matos >> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org >> Subject: Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint >> >> Yes... I seem to remember the documentation is just wrong for that hook >> (and the interface is somewhat broken). As you noted, you can't just >> remove insns from the ready list without moving them somewhere else. >> > > But if I can't remove an insn from the ready list (by 'remove' I mean > reorder such that gcc understands that the insn should be postponed > to the next cycle) in the reorder hook, I will give the adjust > priorities hook a try and maybe here I can ensure that two insns that > write to the same registers do not have the same priority. You can effectively remove it by returning zero if all the insns on the ready list would cause a conflict. The scheduler will then force the next cycle. Seriously, all this exists in c6x.c, you just need to copy that code. Bernd
RE: Defining scheduling resource constraint
> -Original Message- > From: Bernd Schmidt [mailto:ber...@codesourcery.com] > Sent: 07 November 2012 11:24 > To: Paulo Matos > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint > > > You can effectively remove it by returning zero if all the insns on the > ready list would cause a conflict. The scheduler will then force the > next cycle. > Makes sense... > Seriously, all this exists in c6x.c, you just need to copy that code. > > I understand that I can copy the code. I could even just go ahead and change haifa-sched.c however I am just trying to understand how all these scheduling hooks work and why the docs say something and I was seeing something else. I am sorry if I was a nuisance. Thanks for your help. -- Paulo Matos
Re: Questions regarding licensing issues
Hi, You can't expect to get legal advice from a list like this, and if you do get advice, you can't trust it. You have to consult an attorney to evaluate issues like this, and even then you can't get guaranteed definitive advice. Copyright issues are complex, as Supap Kirtsaeng is discovering in his trip to the supreme court. "Well, sh!t sir, I'd hate to see this happen" -- random movie quote, not my saying And I don't know Supap. Furthermore, no one has any interest in assuring you that what you are doing is OK in advance. The GPL is about encouraging people to use the GPL, and the gcc community does not really have an interest in making it easier for people to follow some other path. AFAICS GPL,v3+ restricts my freedom... I thought that its purpose was to protect my freedom. Anything GPL'ed would remain GPL'ed. If you'd read my email carefully you would see that I propose two things: 1) a plugin, 2) a backend that would be open-source, GPL, v3. I only want to protect my work (the non-GPL software), basically due to the fact that although I have developed something like 5-10 patentable processes that are implemented as software within non-GPL software, I don't have the resources to patent them. And I mean a patent regarding the process or "apparatus" and certainly not the software (justifiably unpatentable!) For instance, I have a world-first process of applying operation chaining directly on VHDL codes, without any graph-based or IR-based analyses. I can't affort the $25k patent, just don't want to disclose my hard work. At the same time, I acknowledge how much GPL software helps it is really important e.g. in the public infrastructure. I don't find anything demonic in being on both sides of the mirror. Everyone is if you elaborate deeply on this, it is yourself on both sides, right? I know I have come to a scheme that I will not violate the GPL. I guess you have to further restrict my freedom in GPL, version 4, so I could not apply it. I hope this will not happen. In this economic turmoil, all good guys are needed. The big picture (for this particular sector of IT) is how to open jobs to more capable people, regain and facilitate growth. Maybe the FSF are the bad guys after all. The only thing that would assure you that what you are planning is OK is a specific intepretation of how the GPL applies by the copyright holder. I'm pretty certain I have correctly interpreted GPL,v3. I have good reasons to believe that. However, I'm willing to read your interpretation of the GPL,v3, if you have any. BTW, it is no surprise that you got no response from licens...@fsf.org. I thought this was their job. Obviously I was wrong. I'm not trying to circumvent the GPL just to adhere to it. Is this so wrong? Then what is the point of the exception clauses? They are there but you don't want people to understand how to use them? Sincerely yours, Nikolaos Kavvadias
Re: Questions regarding licensing issues
I'm pretty certain I have correctly interpreted GPL,v3. I have good reasons to believe that. However, I'm willing to read your interpretation of the GPL,v3, if you have any. If you are certain enough, then you can of course proceed on that assumption. I have no interest in giving my opinion on this, why should I? Perhaps others will, who knows? We will see, but it would not surprise me if no one is willing to provide the equivalent of an electronic letter of comfort :-) BTW, it is no surprise that you got no response from licens...@fsf.org. I thought this was their job. Obviously I was wrong. I'm not trying to circumvent the GPL just to adhere to it. Is this so wrong? Then what is the point of the exception clauses? They are there but you don't want people to understand how to use them? Yes, you were wrong, it is not the job of that mailing list to provide legal advice! There are two comfortable ways to conform to the GPL. a) make all your own stuff GPL'ed b) write proprietary code, that links in only modules with the standard library exception. Anything else, and you are prettty much on your own. Especially if trying to rig up some system that has full-GPL components, and non-GPL components. Even a) and b) are a little tricky if you don't have a well defined entity that can guarantee the licensing of the modules you use (remember that notices within files do not have legal weight).
Re: Questions regarding licensing issues
> I have a few questions to make sure that I will not violate the GPL,v3: If you have a legal question, you should ask an attorney who specializes in copyright law as it applies to computer software. Do not rely on anything you get as a response to your question online. The below is my opinion, based on my understanding of current copyright law, but I am not an attorney: > 1. My tool is structured as follows: > - A frontend that translates GIMPLE dumps to my own N-Address Code > (NAC) textual representation. > - A module that generates CDFGs (expressed as Graphviz graphs) from > NAC translation units. If NAC is *your* representation, rather than that of some standard (such as a published assembler representation of some real machine), then they would both be considered derived works from each other. Since the first is covered by the GPL, the second must also.
Re: Questions regarding licensing issues
Hi Robert, There are two comfortable ways to conform to the GPL. a) make all your own stuff GPL'ed b) write proprietary code, that links in only modules with the standard library exception. I guess I'm naturally going for b), that was the original intention. Anything else, and you are prettty much on your own. Especially if trying to rig up some system that has full-GPL components, and non-GPL components. One easy and clear way to solve this, is to deliver separate products. Was also possible with GPL,v2. Even a) and b) are a little tricky if you don't have a well defined entity that can guarantee the licensing of the modules you use (remember that notices within files do not have legal weight). Yes, of course. Best regards, Nikolaos Kavvadias
Re: Questions regarding licensing issues
> AFAICS GPL,v3+ restricts my freedom... If you want to argue that, I'd suggest you not do so on this email list: it's not going to be well-received. > I know I have come to a scheme that I will not violate the GPL. I disagree.
Re: Fwd: Questions regarding licensing issues
Hi Richard, If you have a legal question, you should ask an attorney who specializes in copyright law as it applies to computer software. Do not rely on anything you get as a response to your question online. There are not many lawyers in Greece that deal with open-source licenses. If NAC is *your* representation, It is not my representation, but my "assembly" language code. rather than that of some standard (such as a published assembler representation of some real machine) I can built a real machine if this is needed. A soft-core running NAC machine code on an FPGA. And e.g. I can sell one license for the use of this processor core under a symbolic amount. In this case, this will be a commercial machine with published specs and all. The assembly representation can be reworked in any given possible way that would please the FSF. In some form, this is already there (my "ByoRISC" processor, essentially was running SUIF virtual machine code, the predecessor of NAC). Would these solve my problem? I don't find any of these as an actual showstopper. The FSF is not entitled to decide whether a target architecture is a spoof or not as long as it is properly defined. then they would both be considered derived works from each other. Best regards, Nikolaos Kavvadias
Re: Questions regarding licensing issues
Hi Richard, If you want to argue that, I'd suggest you not do so on this email list: it's not going to be well-received. I don't want to sound b@d@ss or something, even though I am ^_^. This is not my saying, just that my army colleagues wouldn't shake hands when I fulfilled my service. Maybe it was due to the fact that I asked for a law to be enforced that would let them to stay stranded on certain posts for many weeks a time, so that i could be close to a very special person of mine though working 32-hour days in the army. This is not a mistype, I worked a total of 32 hours per 24-day, of course by being assigned dual tasks per time. So they had me wrong, this is my point. Believe me, it was a piece of cake to stay stranded on some lousy post, than to work 32 hours a day. I'm not looking for being well-received; clarifying my issues is much more important to me. I know I have come to a scheme that I will not violate the GPL. I disagree. I think you are wrong, however it is not really productive to express it. Best regards, Nikolaos Kavvadias
Re: Questions regarding licensing issues
On 11/7/2012 8:17 AM, nk...@physics.auth.gr wrote: I disagree. I think you are wrong, however it is not really productive to express it. I would not casually ignore Richard's opinion, he has FAR more experience here than you do, and far more familiarity with the issues involved.
Re: Questions regarding licensing issues
> > b) write proprietary code, that links in only modules with > > the standard library exception. > > I guess I'm naturally going for b), that was the original intention. But most of GCC, which you are "linking in" by virtue of a custom interface, does *not* have the library exception, so you are not doing this. > One easy and clear way to solve this, is to deliver separate products. Be sure you understand what "separate" means in copyright law. Again, let me suggest that you consult a qualified attorney to discuss this topic in detail.
Re: Fwd: Questions regarding licensing issues
> There are not many lawyers in Greece that deal with open-source licenses. Then I'd suggest trying in other EU nations. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that most of the relevant issues are the same throughout the EU. > Would these solve my problem? No, not as long as it's *your* machine. It would need to be a machine designed by a third-party that's completely independent of you. > I don't find any of these as an actual showstopper. The FSF is not > entitled to decide whether a target architecture is a spoof or not as > long as it is properly defined. That's not the relevant legal issue and it wouldn't be the FSF that's deciding, but a court. I've given my non-lawyer opinion of how I think a court would likely rule on this issue given the precedents I'm aware of. At this point, I suggest you find a lawyer and get a proper legal opinion.
Re: Fwd: Questions regarding licensing issues
> There are not many lawyers in Greece that deal with open-source licenses.
The legal issue here has nothing whatsoever to do with open-source
licenses: the exact same issue comes up with proprietary licenses and
that, in fact, is where most of the precedents come from.
The legal issue is in the definition of a "derived work" and what kind
of separation is needed between two programs ("works") to be able to
successfully assert that one is not a derived work of the other.
Re: Fwd: Questions regarding licensing issues
Hi Richard Would these solve my problem? No, not as long as it's *your* machine. It would need to be a machine designed by a third-party that's completely independent of you. I would like to follow the approach of let's say MMIX (a virtual architecture). 1. Write a totally GPL-ed tool flow (gcc), that will include a NAC backend 2. Write an open-source, free simulator for the NAC, assembly-like representation. 3. Have all the relevant code in a public repository for examination, contributions, etc. Always under a GPL-compatible license. I think this should be viable. That's not the relevant legal issue and it wouldn't be the FSF that's deciding, but a court. I've given my non-lawyer opinion of how I think a court would likely rule on this issue given the precedents I'm aware of. At this point, I suggest you find a lawyer and get a proper legal opinion. OK I understand and I really thank you for your time. Best regards, Nikolaos Kavvadias
Re: Fwd: Questions regarding licensing issues
Quoting Richard Kenner :
There are not many lawyers in Greece that deal with open-source licenses.
The legal issue here has nothing whatsoever to do with open-source
licenses: the exact same issue comes up with proprietary licenses and
that, in fact, is where most of the precedents come from.
The legal issue is in the definition of a "derived work" and what kind
of separation is needed between two programs ("works") to be able to
successfully assert that one is not a derived work of the other.
Yes, this is the major issue here.
Re: Fwd: Questions regarding licensing issues
On 11/7/2012 9:44 AM, nk...@physics.auth.gr wrote:
Quoting Richard Kenner :
There are not many lawyers in Greece that deal with open-source licenses.
The legal issue here has nothing whatsoever to do with open-source
licenses: the exact same issue comes up with proprietary licenses and
that, in fact, is where most of the precedents come from.
The legal issue is in the definition of a "derived work" and what kind
of separation is needed between two programs ("works") to be able to
successfully assert that one is not a derived work of the other.
Yes, this is the major issue here.
One principle that can be applied is that if you have a program in
two pieces, then they are independent if either of them can be used
(and is used in practice) with other programs. But if the two pieces
can only work together, that seems part of the same program. I tried
to get this principle established in federal fourt in the Bentley
vs Intergraph trial, but unfortunately it settled 24 hours before
the judge published his opinion.
Re: Fwd: Questions regarding licensing issues
On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, nk...@physics.auth.gr wrote: > I don't find any of these as an actual showstopper. The FSF is not entitled to > decide whether a target architecture is a spoof or not as long as it is > properly defined. Correct. A court of competent jurisdiction can decide whether your scheme conforms to the relevant licenses; neither licens...@fsf.org nor the people on this list can. I believe in free software as a contribution to a better society and believe in the use of licenses such as GPLv3 to promote software sharing by providing a software commons that can be used by those who will contribute their changes to that commons, and do not consider this list - or any GNU Project list - an appropriate place to seek advice about how to do things going against the spirit of that commons. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
Re: Fwd: Questions regarding licensing issues
> Correct. A court of competent jurisdiction can decide whether your scheme > conforms to the relevant licenses; neither licens...@fsf.org nor the > people on this list can. A minor correction: licens...@fsf.org *could* determine that since they are the copyright holders. If they say it's OK, that would be permitting such a scheme. However, the FSF, as a matter of policy, *does not* respond to queries about whether or not some scheme violates the GPL. > I believe in free software as a contribution to a better society and > believe in the use of licenses such as GPLv3 to promote software sharing > by providing a software commons that can be used by those who will > contribute their changes to that commons, and do not consider this list - > or any GNU Project list - an appropriate place to seek advice about how to > do things going against the spirit of that commons. I very much agree!
Re: Fwd: Questions regarding licensing issues
On 11/7/2012 11:08 AM, Richard Kenner wrote: Correct. A court of competent jurisdiction can decide whether your scheme conforms to the relevant licenses; neither licens...@fsf.org nor the people on this list can. A minor correction: licens...@fsf.org *could* determine that since they are the copyright holders. If they say it's OK, that would be permitting such a scheme. However, the FSF, as a matter of policy, *does not* respond to queries about whether or not some scheme violates the GPL. And why should they? Or why would they? I believe in free software as a contribution to a better society and believe in the use of licenses such as GPLv3 to promote software sharing by providing a software commons that can be used by those who will contribute their changes to that commons, and do not consider this list - or any GNU Project list - an appropriate place to seek advice about how to do things going against the spirit of that commons. I very much agree! Me too!
Re: Questions regarding licensing issues
On 11/07/12 12:08, nk...@physics.auth.gr wrote: > AFAICS GPL,v3+ restricts my freedom... I thought that its purpose was > to protect my freedom. No. I don't simply want to pile on after everything that has been said, but this is a common misconception. It isn't the purpose of the GPL to protect the rights of developers to impose restrictions on the users of their software. Its purpose, to the extent possible, is to protect the rights of those users. This is best done by preventing developers from imposing such restrictions if they use GNU software. Andrew.
Re: Fwd: Questions regarding licensing issues
Hi Robert One principle that can be applied is that if you have a program in two pieces, then they are independent if either of them can be used (and is used in practice) with other programs. But if the two pieces can only work together, that seems part of the same program. I tried to get this principle established in federal fourt in the Bentley vs Intergraph trial, but unfortunately it settled 24 hours before the judge published his opinion. Yes, the case is that the two pieces can be independent since they can be used with third-party programs. The one piece would be GPL-ed tool flow and the other piece a kind of "specialized" assembler. I recall that many proprietary assemblers did/do exist, e.g. for x86. I think we should view the second piece as such, a proprietary assembler. But if the two pieces can only work together, that seems part of the same program. This appears like very good reasoning, sorry to hear that it was not eventually put into test in court. Hope that everything worked the best of either parties.
Re: Fwd: Questions regarding licensing issues
Hi all, I believe in free software as a contribution to a better society and believe in the use of licenses such as GPLv3 to promote software sharing by providing a software commons that can be used by those who will contribute their changes to that commons, and do not consider this list - or any GNU Project list - an appropriate place to seek advice about how to do things going against the spirit of that commons. I very much agree! The spirit of that commons is really highly important. However, the "letter" of the law is of certain importance, too.
Re: Questions regarding licensing issues
Hi Andrew AFAICS GPL,v3+ restricts my freedom... I thought that its purpose was to protect my freedom. No. I don't simply want to pile on after everything that has been said, but this is a common misconception. It isn't the purpose of the GPL to protect the rights of developers to impose restrictions on the users of their software. Its purpose, to the extent possible, is to protect the rights of those users. This is best done by preventing developers from imposing such restrictions if they use GNU software. I understand. And the rights of the users should be protected, to the extent described by the GPL,v3.
Re: Fwd: Questions regarding licensing issues
Hi all, what I basically want to do is a kind of "MMIX", an abstract machine that amongst other uses could be amenable to hardware compilation. This specific use is not of interest to neither this list nor GCC developers in general. There are many other uses for such a "representation" such as: - static analysis - dynamic analysis, profiling - low-level optimization, supercompilation - decompilation - software target if mapped to programmable hardware (think of ASIP: Application-Specific Instruction-set Processor). Second, I'm really not amenable to preaching, just amenable to interpreting rules, restrictions, permissions and facts. The discussion around licensing is really not relevant. It is not, due to the fact that I will make public, GPL-v3'ed and "contributable" all the required infrastructure for running programs on my "MMIX". Judging by previous practice, I don't see any issues arising. However, I would like to focus on the more technical side, and not continue the discussion on the legalese. Best regards, Nikolaos Kavvadias On 11/7/2012 11:08 AM, Richard Kenner wrote: Correct. A court of competent jurisdiction can decide whether your scheme conforms to the relevant licenses; neither licens...@fsf.org nor the people on this list can. A minor correction: licens...@fsf.org *could* determine that since they are the copyright holders. If they say it's OK, that would be permitting such a scheme. However, the FSF, as a matter of policy, *does not* respond to queries about whether or not some scheme violates the GPL. And why should they? Or why would they? I believe in free software as a contribution to a better society and believe in the use of licenses such as GPLv3 to promote software sharing by providing a software commons that can be used by those who will contribute their changes to that commons, and do not consider this list - or any GNU Project list - an appropriate place to seek advice about how to do things going against the spirit of that commons. I very much agree! Me too!
Re: Fwd: Questions regarding licensing issues
> Yes, the case is that the two pieces can be independent since they can > be used with third-party programs. The one piece would be GPL-ed tool > flow and the other piece a kind of "specialized" assembler. I recall > that many proprietary assemblers did/do exist, e.g. for x86. I think > we should view the second piece as such, a proprietary assembler. You missed the part about "(and is used in practice)". You can't take something that is not permissible under copyright law and make it permissible by the sort of thing you are trying to do, especially since you've disclosed that on a public list such as this! Please consult an attorney who is expert in this field.
Re: Fwd: Questions regarding licensing issues
Hi You missed the part about "(and is used in practice)". This terminology is superficial. Looks carelessly written. A tool with either one user or one million users would equally fit the definition. You can't take something that is not permissible under copyright law I think you are wrong here; it is permissible. Maybe not likeable but permissible. you've disclosed that on a public list such as this! As I've said, I can't have any other kind of approach but being direct. So sorry for being direct; next time I'll strive really hard so that I won't. I took my lesson. What is this, the "Minority Report", everybody "talking" like i'm being judged of committing some crime in the future? Can we talk business or what? Best regards, Nikolaos Kavvadias
Re: Fwd: Questions regarding licensing issues
The purpose of this discussion (whoa, 30+ thread in the gcc mailing list for being b@d@ss) is that I will learn the sufficient amount of things so I WON'T "commit the crime". I would like to be clear from the start so I won't have any problems; I really want to serve my one trillion users (LOL) of my "third-party, non-GPL" tool the best possible way. Quoting Richard Kenner : Yes, the case is that the two pieces can be independent since they can be used with third-party programs. The one piece would be GPL-ed tool flow and the other piece a kind of "specialized" assembler. I recall that many proprietary assemblers did/do exist, e.g. for x86. I think we should view the second piece as such, a proprietary assembler. You missed the part about "(and is used in practice)". You can't take something that is not permissible under copyright law and make it permissible by the sort of thing you are trying to do, especially since you've disclosed that on a public list such as this! Please consult an attorney who is expert in this field.
Checking in on a Broken Math Resource Link on Your Site
Hi Administrator, I've reported a broken link on your site gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/1999-q3n/msg00261.html that links to http://www.cs.unb.ca/~alopez-o/math-faq/math-faq.html and haven't heard back, so I just wanted to verify whether you're the right person to contact? If not, could you direct me to the person maintaining the website? If you would be interested in updating your website, I have a similar resource that you are more than welcome to use to update. Let me know! Link Replacement Option: http://www.onlinebachelordegreeprograms.com/resources/bachelor-of-arts-in-math-math-resources/ Best, Alexandra Sawyer
Re: Fwd: Questions regarding licensing issues
> The purpose of this discussion (whoa, 30+ thread in the gcc mailing > list for being b@d@ss) is that I will learn the sufficient amount of > things so I WON'T "commit the crime". > > I would like to be clear from the start so I won't have any > problems; I really want to serve my one trillion users (LOL) of my > "third-party, non-GPL" tool the best possible way. This is all nice and well and I'm sure you're having lots of fun with these discussions, but gcc@gcc.gnu.org is NOT an appropriate list for such discussions, so please move this discussion elsewhere, there are people on this list who would rather not receive these unrelated emails, thanks. Arno
BSD licensed code OK in test suite?
Hi all, In PR 24129 we've got a test case that originated from some BSD licensed code. Is it OK to add this test case 1:1 into the c torture tests? Or is a disclaimer required such as found in gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr20527-1.c ? Thanks, Oleg
Re: BSD licensed code OK in test suite?
On 11/07/2012 02:47 PM, Oleg Endo wrote: Hi all, In PR 24129 we've got a test case that originated from some BSD licensed code. Is it OK to add this test case 1:1 into the c torture tests? Or is a disclaimer required such as found in gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr20527-1.c ? Ideally the test would be reduced to its minimal form; at that point its copyright status would be re-evaluated. jeff
Re: BSD licensed code OK in test suite?
On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 14:59 -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/07/2012 02:47 PM, Oleg Endo wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > In PR 24129 we've got a test case that originated from some BSD licensed > > code. Is it OK to add this test case 1:1 into the c torture tests? > > Or is a disclaimer required such as found in > > gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr20527-1.c ? > Ideally the test would be reduced to its minimal form; at that point its > copyright status would be re-evaluated. > I'm sorry, the PR in question is 48806. 24129 is the attachment ID: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24129 Do you think that this needs further reduction, or would it be sufficient to rename the func/var names and reformat it? Cheers, Oleg
Re: Fwd: Questions regarding licensing issues
Hi Arnaud, This is all nice and well and I'm sure you're having lots of fun with these discussions, but gcc@gcc.gnu.org is NOT an appropriate list for such discussions, so please move this discussion elsewhere, there are people on this list who would rather not receive these unrelated emails, thanks. Fun is not an option, you might got the wrong impression. My apologies. Anyway it seems that lots of people are using GPL without knowing where the real limits of their freedom. I tried to clarify some issues, and have come to my own conclusions. I won't tire this thread any further on this specific development of mine, not until I have some concrete GPL, v3 code; code that will be happily shared. Overall, this was just a theoretical discussion.
Re: BSD licensed code OK in test suite?
On 11/07/2012 03:08 PM, Oleg Endo wrote: On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 14:59 -0700, Jeff Law wrote: On 11/07/2012 02:47 PM, Oleg Endo wrote: Hi all, In PR 24129 we've got a test case that originated from some BSD licensed code. Is it OK to add this test case 1:1 into the c torture tests? Or is a disclaimer required such as found in gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr20527-1.c ? Ideally the test would be reduced to its minimal form; at that point its copyright status would be re-evaluated. I'm sorry, the PR in question is 48806. 24129 is the attachment ID: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24129 Do you think that this needs further reduction, or would it be sufficient to rename the func/var names and reformat it? I think it's borderline as-is. I suspect there's quite a bit of junk that can be zapped from that test. jeff
Re: BSD licensed code OK in test suite?
On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 15:12 -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/07/2012 03:08 PM, Oleg Endo wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 14:59 -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > >> On 11/07/2012 02:47 PM, Oleg Endo wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> In PR 24129 we've got a test case that originated from some BSD licensed > >>> code. Is it OK to add this test case 1:1 into the c torture tests? > >>> Or is a disclaimer required such as found in > >>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr20527-1.c ? > >> Ideally the test would be reduced to its minimal form; at that point its > >> copyright status would be re-evaluated. > >> > > > > I'm sorry, the PR in question is 48806. 24129 is the attachment ID: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24129 > > > > Do you think that this needs further reduction, or would it be > > sufficient to rename the func/var names and reformat it? > I think it's borderline as-is. > > I suspect there's quite a bit of junk that can be zapped from that test. OK, thanks for your feedback. I'll have a closer look at it and post a patch if I can successfuly reduce it further. Cheers, Oleg
