Gilmore, Doug wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "C. Bergström" [mailto:cbergst...@pathscale.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 9:18 PM
>> To: Gilmore, Doug
>> Cc: Open64-devel
>> Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] Fortran front-end changes review request
>>
>> Gilmore, Doug wrote:
>>
>>> I have some changes the fix some problems related to the handling of
>>> Character variables reported in bug 668:
>>>
>>> https://bugs.open64.net/show_bug.cgi?id=668
>>>
>>> The patch is attached to the bug, could someone review the patch when
>>> they have a chance?
>>>
>>>
>> In my view this patch lacks proper legal review (I have stated before
>> that Open64 needs to get this problem sorted out). If someone commits
>> this I think it will do more harm to Open64 than good. I'm not your
>> boss Doug, but why can't you stop looking at the PathScale code and
>> just start writing your own. (This is not a personal remark against you).
>>
> I do, however if the bug is already fixed in the PathScale compiler, I'll
> port the fix. If it is a bug that exists in both compilers then I'll
> fix the bug so that it is fixed in both compilers.
>
> Isn't this the point of GPL?
>
Just because "the bug is fixed in xyz codebase" doesn't mean it's a good
idea to copy it over, does it? (Regardless what your (incorrect) view
is on the license(s) involved.)
Do you even know what legal review means? Does AMD or anyone from
Open64 care about this at all? You completely ignored my previous email
when I pointed out the copyright notices may be incorrect. You do
realize that Open64 is blocked from moving to include GPLv3 code as a
result of this general lackadaisical attitude. What license do you
think crayf90/fe90/s_interoperable.c is under since it doesn't have a
license notice at the top? Did you even notice or care about that?
You're not a lawyer and if you do make a mistake who is going to be
responsible? Will your customers pay, AMD, you individually.. Quit
making this a "PathScale" issue and stay with the facts and questions..
Other general points..
* If you can't fix the original bug on your own then how do you have
any clue that you're doing a correct job of importing the changes
* Does the patch fix a single trackable issue or just lazy
copy/pasting code
* Which gatekeeper can properly review this?
Best,
./C
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports
standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 & L3.
Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great
experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/beautyoftheweb
_______________________________________________
Open64-devel mailing list
Open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open64-devel
