On 23/10/2012 11:42 μμ, Julia Lawall wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Angelos Oikonomopoulos wrote:
[...]
The concept that the GPL would apply to the output of spatch, just
because spatch itself is under the GPL is well beyond far-fetched. By
the same logic, it could as well apply to the results of a
search-and-replace in emacs :)
Not quite. Because thre is no GPL on the replace. The user writes the
replace himself. What is being discussed is semantic patches that are
GPL'd, not the fact that Coccinelle itself is GPL'd.
Oh, I misunderstood the issue in question then, sorry for my careless
reading.
I hope everyone agrees that patches that merely report potential issues
are fine. In the case that a semantic patch adds significant amounts of
original code, it does sound that the authors of the semantic patches
might need to grant an explicit exception. I seriously doubt that the
output of patches like andand.cocci (or any search-and-replace-style
transformation) is copyrightable, however :)
BTW, you might also consider asking the SFLC for pro-bono advice on this
https://www.softwarefreedom.org/about/contact/
HTH,
Aggelos
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
