Re: [PATCH, libgcc] Fix licenses on several files

2013-08-26 Thread Maxim Kuvyrkov
On 29/07/2013, at 10:03 AM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > While verifying license compliance for GCC and its libraries I noticed that > several libgcc files that end up in the final library are licensed under > GPL-3.0+ instead of GPL-3.0-with-GCC-exception. > > This is, obviously, was not the intent

Re: [PATCH, libgcc] Fix licenses on several files

2013-08-01 Thread Richard Henderson
On 07/28/2013 12:03 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > Richard, did you and Red Hat intend to license config/ia64/unwind-ia64.h > under GPL-3.0-with-GCC-exception? > > DJ, did you and Red Hat intend to license config/mips/vr4120-div.S under > GPL-3.0-with-GCC-exception? Yes, Red Hat intended to licens

Re: [PATCH, libgcc] Fix licenses on several files

2013-07-30 Thread Sriraman Tallam
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > While verifying license compliance for GCC and its libraries I noticed that > several libgcc files that end up in the final library are licensed under > GPL-3.0+ instead of GPL-3.0-with-GCC-exception. > > This is, obviously, was not the in

Re: [PATCH, libgcc] Fix licenses on several files

2013-07-29 Thread Maxim Kuvyrkov
n 30/07/2013, at 2:06 AM, Ondřej Bílka wrote: > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 12:10:42PM +0100, Marcus Shawcroft wrote: >> On 28/07/13 23:03, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: >>> While verifying license compliance for GCC and its libraries I noticed that >>> several libgcc files that end up in the final library a

Re: [PATCH, libgcc] Fix licenses on several files

2013-07-29 Thread Ondřej Bílka
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 12:10:42PM +0100, Marcus Shawcroft wrote: > On 28/07/13 23:03, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > >While verifying license compliance for GCC and its libraries I noticed that > >several libgcc files that end up in the final library are licensed under > >GPL-3.0+ instead of GPL-3.0-wi

Re: [PATCH, libgcc] Fix licenses on several files

2013-07-29 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: > Marcus, did you and ARM intend to license config/aarch64/sfp-machine.h > and config/aarch64/sync-cache.c under GPL-3.0-with-GCC-exception? In general I think it's appropriate for sfp-machine.h files to use the soft-fp license (LGPLv2.1+ with exceptio

Re: [PATCH, libgcc] Fix licenses on several files

2013-07-29 Thread Marcus Shawcroft
On 28/07/13 23:03, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: While verifying license compliance for GCC and its libraries I noticed that several libgcc files that end up in the final library are licensed under GPL-3.0+ instead of GPL-3.0-with-GCC-exception. This is, obviously, was not the intention of developers

[PATCH, libgcc] Fix licenses on several files

2013-07-28 Thread Maxim Kuvyrkov
While verifying license compliance for GCC and its libraries I noticed that several libgcc files that end up in the final library are licensed under GPL-3.0+ instead of GPL-3.0-with-GCC-exception. This is, obviously, was not the intention of developers who just copied wrong boilerplate text, an