Hi, On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 05:18:56PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> writes: > > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 06:39:33PM +0100, Martin Jambor wrote: > >> the following patch adds a BRIG (binary representation of HSAIL) > >> representation description. It is within a single header file > >> describing the binary structures and constants of the format. > >> > >> The file comes from the HSA Foundation (I have only added the > >> HSA_BRIG_FORMAT_H macro and check and removed some weird comments > >> which are not present in proposed future versions of the file) and is > >> licensed under "University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License." > >> > >> The license is "GPL-compatible" according to FSF > >> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses) > >> so I believe we can have it in GCC. Nevertheless, it is not GPL and > >> there is no copyright assignment for it, but the situation is > >> hopefully analogous to some other libraries that have their upstream > >> elsewhere but we ship them as part of the GCC. > >> > >> In the previous posting of this patch > >> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-12/msg00721.html) I have > >> requested a permission from the steering committee to include this file > >> with a different upstream in GCC. I have not received an official > >> reply but since I have been chosen to be the HSA maintainer, I tend to > >> think there were no legal objections against HSA going forward, > >> including this file. > > Martin, could you ask the HSA Foundation or AMD or whoever if there is > any way they could remove the second requirement of the license? It > adds yet another case where anybody distributing GCC has to list yet > another copyright notice.
I will raise this with the HSA PRM group and perhaps there is a slight chance that they will change this in the upcoming version of HSAIL. But it is not going to happen soon enough. > > Barring that, I would personally prefer that you write your own version > of this header file, defining the constants and structs that you need. > That's basically what we've done for ELF and COFF and Mach-O, several > times over. For example, libiberty/simple-object-elf.c. Well, if we have done something like this before, I can go through the exercise of copy'n'pasting everything from the PDF specification, if that allowed us to "own" the file and put it under GPL 3. But I must say I do not know. It is going to be a bit tedious job (and it would be good to double check I made no mistakes somehow) but it is certainly doable. I guess I will embark on it after going through the rest of the review (unless someone here tells me I should not, that is). > > Barring that, I agree with Jakub that this looks like something that > should go in the top-level include subdirectory rather than the gcc > subdirectory. Even if I "create" a copy of our own? But sure, no problem. Martin
