Gilmore, Doug wrote: > The old license on intrn_entry.def was BSD, which with my patch is > would be changed to GPLv2. Both are compatible with Open64. > > My point of the change is that intrn_entry.def could be considered to > be a derived work, and if so, the copyright notices and license should > reflect that of the previous work. Note the license on the previous > work was GPLv2. > > I don't think there are any licensing issues with the patch that > implements the fix. The issue is whether intrn_entry.def is a derived > work or not. If people are comfortable in saying that it was not a > derived work, which gave us the freedom at the time of commit r1764 to > set the license on to intrn_entry.def to BSD, then no change of > license is needed. > > I attached the patch associated with commit r1764. Keep in mind > that the patch is against the tree branches/merge08, where > the PSC 3.2 (and others) merge was done. > > I added another patch to the bug report with no license change, but > I did add a copyright notice for the change that I just added. > > If people think that my interpretation of copyright law is too > strict then we can go ahead and apply that patch instead. > I humbly ask that open64 quit basing decisions about licensing from arm-chair lawyers. (No offense Doug) Seriously ask a real lawyer who is very familiar with software licenses about how to do this and get clear/knowledgeable advice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Increase Visibility of Your 3D Game App & Earn a Chance To Win $500! Tap into the largest installed PC base & get more eyes on your game by optimizing for Intel(R) Graphics Technology. Get started today with the Intel(R) Software Partner Program. Five $500 cash prizes are up for grabs. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intelisp-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Open64-devel mailing list Open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open64-devel
