On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:55 AM Andrew Stubbs <a...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > > Ping.
Sorry, but you won't get any help resolving license issues from the mailing list. Instead you should eventually ask the SC to "resolve" this issue with the FSF. Richard. > On 14/09/2020 17:56, Andrew Stubbs wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I need to update include/hsa.h to access some newer APIs. The existing > > file was created by copying from the user manual, thus side-stepping > > licensing issues, but the updated user manual omits some important > > details from the APIs I need (mostly the contents of structs and value > > of enums). Of course, I can go see those details in the source, but > > that's not the same thing. > > > > So, what I would like to do is import the header files I need into the > > GCC sources; there's precedent for importing (unmodified) copyright > > files for libffi etc., AFAICT, but of course the license needs to be > > acceptable. > > > > The relevant files are here: > > > > https://github.com/RadeonOpenCompute/ROCR-Runtime/blob/master/src/inc/hsa.h > > https://github.com/RadeonOpenCompute/ROCR-Runtime/blob/master/src/inc/hsa_ext_amd.h > > > > https://github.com/RadeonOpenCompute/ROCR-Runtime/blob/master/src/inc/hsa_ext_image.h > > > > > > When I previously enquired about this on IRC I was advised that the > > Illinois license would be unacceptable because it contains an > > attribution clause that would require all binary distributors to credit > > AMD in their documentation, which seems like a reasonable position. I've > > requested that AMD provide a copy of these specific files with a more > > acceptable license, and I may yet be successful, but it's not that simple. > > > > The problem is that GCC already has this exact same license in > > libsanitizer/LICENSE.TXT so, again reasonably, AMD want to know why that > > licence is acceptable and their license is not. > > > > Looking at the files myself, there appears to be some kind of dual > > license thing going on, and the word "Illinois" doesn't actually appear > > in any libsanitizer source file (many of which contain an Apache license > > header). Does this mean that the Illinois license is not actually active > > here? Or is it that it is active and binary distributors really should > > be obeying this attribution clause already? > > > > Can anybody help me untangle this, please? > > > > Are the files acceptable, and if not, how is this different from the > > other cases? > > > > Thanks very much > > > > Andrew >
