On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 at 17:45, Koning, Paul via Libstdc++ <libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 28, 2022, at 8:37 AM, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches > > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > > I intend to commit this patch soon. This isn't changing the policy, just > > adjusting the docs to match the current policy. > > > > I'm open to suggestions for better ways to phrase the second sentence, > > clarifying that our tests generally have nothing novel or "authored". > > > > -- >8 -- > > > > There is no need to require FSF copyright for tests that are just > > "self-evident" ways to check the API and behaviour of the library. > > This is consistent with tests for the compiler, which do not have > > copyright and licence notices either. > > So is the theory that "self-evident" documents are in the public domain for > that reason?
Yes. Let's look at a test I added this week: libstdc++-v3/testsuite/30_threads/packaged_task/cons/deduction.cc It has a copyright notice because (as I said in the commit log) it was copied from an existing test that has one. But what part of that file constituted original authorship? That code does nothing useful, it doesn't even link. All it does is construct objects and verify that the compiler deduced the correct type, which verifies that the library has defined the deduction guides correctly. Let's look at another one: libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/unique_ptr/comparison/constexpr.cc What part of this is copyrightable? Is it where I create some variables, or performs a series of repetitive and redundant comparisons on them, or both? This could almost be machine generated, and I assert that it's not meaningful or useful or sensible to consider it as a copyrighted work. So I didn't bother putting the notices on this one. > Or is the policy that for such file it is fine for the copyright to be held > by the author (which is the default when no assignment is made)? And a > similar question applies to the license aspect also. > > I think I understand the intent, and that seems to make sense, but I'm > wondering if it has been verified by the appropriate FSF IP lawyers. If there's a concern, why haven't they raised it for the compiler's own testsuite? Why should libstdc++ tests have copyright notices or GPL notices when gcc tests don't? I count 83 *.[cChm] files under gcc/testsuite with a GPL notice, out of some 64 THOUSAND files. The number with FSF copyright notices is around 1100, e.g. gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/sparc/ultrasp2.c is copyright FSF, but that seems ludicrous (yes, I know it says it's simplified from another file which is copyright FSF, but so what ... a left shift operation is not copyrightable).
