| Summary: | sys-devel/llvm & co: verify & correct LICENSE | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Michał Górny <mgorny> |
| Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | LLVM support project <llvm> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | licenses, prefix, wtt6 |
| Priority: | Normal | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
|
Description
Michał Górny
2016-10-26 07:27:57 UTC
Ok, so for LLVM the following additional licenses apply: 1. googletest (BSD) is used for unit tests -- do we specify licenses for stuff at build-time at all? 2. OpenBSD regex files -- https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/master/lib/Support/COPYRIGHT.regex. I don't know if we should add a copy of that license, or e.g. make 'rc' license more generic. 3. pyyaml tests use MIT license. Again, do we specify this? 4. ARM backend -- https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/master/lib/Target/ARM/LICENSE.TXT. Again, this is similar to a few licenses but not exactly the same. Probably needs to be added. 5. MD5 code -- public-domain. For clang-tools-extra, there's also https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang-tools-extra/blob/master/clang-tidy/cert/LICENSE.TXT. Not sure if it's something needing mentioning in the LICENSE field. Additional notes: a. compiler-rt needs to be || ( UoI-NCSA MIT ); b. libomp needs to be || ( UoI-NCSA MIT ) with additional thingies from Intel & ARM. Slightly off-topic… If we’re planning to *really* dig into searching the appropriate licenses, I’d suggest setting up a FOSSology instance as for more complex projects it’s much more efficient (and exact) than manual digging. https://www.fossology.org/ (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #1) > 1. googletest (BSD) is used for unit tests -- do we specify licenses for > stuff at build-time at all? IMO only licenses for installed files need to be specified. > 2. OpenBSD regex files -- > https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/master/lib/Support/COPYRIGHT.regex. > I don't know if we should add a copy of that license, or e.g. make 'rc' > license more generic. We have some precedents where "rc" is used in spite of a different copyright holder, e.g. sys-libs/glibc and app-accessibility/festival. So just use "rc" here. But yes, the license file could be changed to say: * Copyright <year> <name of author>. All rights reserved. > 3. pyyaml tests use MIT license. Again, do we specify this? See 1. > 4. ARM backend -- > https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/master/lib/Target/ARM/LICENSE.TXT. > Again, this is similar to a few licenses but not exactly the same. Probably > needs to be added. Sigh, why do people keep inventing their own licenses? Can't they just use Apache-2.0? So yes, this needs to be added ("ARM-LLVM" as name?). @Licenses team: Can this be included in the MISC-FREE group? > 5. MD5 code -- public-domain. (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #2) > For clang-tools-extra, there's also > https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang-tools-extra/blob/master/clang-tidy/cert/ > LICENSE.TXT. Not sure if it's something needing mentioning in the LICENSE > field. That doesn't concern distribution of the software, so no. (And IMHO it is outright stupid.) ffa7003 sys-libs/compiler-rt-sanitizers: Allow alternative MIT license cb65bb5 sys-libs/libomp: Add missing licenses, #598106 2b6918d sys-libs/compiler-rt: Allow alternative MIT license 22e688f sys-devel/llvm: Add missing licenses, #598106 845f33e licenses: Add LLVM Software Grant license necessary for LLVM b89d386 licenses/rc: Blank out the copyright holder name (In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #5) > > https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/master/lib/Target/ARM/LICENSE.TXT. > > @Licenses team: Can this be included in the MISC-FREE group? Reopening because this question need to be answered still. Clauses 1 and 2 of LLVM-Grant are very similar to clauses 2 and 3 of Apache-2.0. *** Bug 602562 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Do I understand correctly from #602562 that it's fine to add it to @MISC-FREE? (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #8) > Duplicate of this bug: 602562 Right, thanks. (I vaguely remembered that we had discussed this but couldn't find it.) (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #9) > Do I understand correctly from #602562 that it's fine to add it to > @MISC-FREE? Done now, since no objections have been raised since more than a month. |