Florian Weimer <[email protected]> writes: > Is CC0 acceptable for GCC? It's not an allowed license for software in > Fedora.
FTR: These files are already in GCC (under gcc/rust/util), I'm merely moving them around. > | CC0-1.0, which has a clause that says that it does not license or > | otherwise "affect" patent rights, is no longer allowed, but it > | continues to be allowed-content. > > <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-approval/> Hmm, maybe we should ask the author (Sy Brand) about patent guarantees, then. Arthur, do you have any more details? Worst-case, as an alternative, I reckon it's possible to reuse the libstdc++ implementation of <optional> and <expected> (I expect that this change would have very little, or no, impact, as Sy's implementation is compatible with the standard one, though they did opt to provide a few extensions that we may or may not be using). We'd need to work out the details wrt. how to best reuse libstdc++ code in gcc/, but that shouldn't be too hard. (FWIW I suggested doing so when these implementations of optional and expected were initially added, but I do not recall why we chose not to go that route back then) -- Arsen Arsenović
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
