added license for sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32/e_gammaf_r.c

Message ID 20241011102225.1450701-1-Paul.Zimmermann@inria.fr
State Committed
Commit 2843e78b30da0aa743fdfb0ac61435c925182c04
Headers
Series added license for sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32/e_gammaf_r.c |

Checks

Context Check Description
redhat-pt-bot/TryBot-apply_patch success Patch applied to master at the time it was sent
redhat-pt-bot/TryBot-32bit success Build for i686
linaro-tcwg-bot/tcwg_glibc_build--master-aarch64 success Build passed
linaro-tcwg-bot/tcwg_glibc_check--master-aarch64 success Test passed
linaro-tcwg-bot/tcwg_glibc_build--master-arm success Build passed
linaro-tcwg-bot/tcwg_glibc_check--master-arm success Test passed

Commit Message

Paul Zimmermann Oct. 11, 2024, 10:22 a.m. UTC
  ---
 LICENSES | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
  

Comments

Adhemerval Zanella Netto Oct. 24, 2024, 2:01 p.m. UTC | #1
On 11/10/24 07:22, Paul Zimmermann wrote:
> ---
>  LICENSES | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/LICENSES b/LICENSES
> index f4b24c1a41..e9c3c812f2 100644
> --- a/LICENSES
> +++ b/LICENSES
> @@ -410,3 +410,26 @@ IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
>  CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
>  TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
>  SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
> +
> +The sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32/e_gammaf_r.c file, taken from the CORE-MATH
> +project, is distributed under the following license:

Hi Paul, maybe just saying that the 'all math implementation taken from CORE-MATH
project' instead of specifying each file.  So possible future new file won't need
to mess with the LICENSES file (since Florian's idea is to eventually remove it
anyway).

> +
> +Copyright (c) 2023-2024 Alexei Sibidanov.
> +
> +Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
> +of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
> +in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
> +to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
> +copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
> +furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
> +
> +The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
> +copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> +
> +THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
> +IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
> +FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
> +AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
> +LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
> +OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
> +SOFTWARE.
  
Paul Zimmermann Oct. 24, 2024, 2:56 p.m. UTC | #2
Hi Adhemerval,

> Hi Paul, maybe just saying that the 'all math implementation taken from CORE-MATH
> project' instead of specifying each file.  So possible future new file won't need
> to mess with the LICENSES file (since Florian's idea is to eventually remove it
> anyway).

ok, but the copyright line (which Florian asked me to add) differs from one
file to the other one, depending on the author(s) of the file.

I don't see how to solve this.

Paul

PS: for some files (e.g., if_ppp.h), there is no copyright line in LICENSES.
  
Florian Weimer Oct. 24, 2024, 3:47 p.m. UTC | #3
* Paul Zimmermann:

>        Hi Adhemerval,
>
>> Hi Paul, maybe just saying that the 'all math implementation taken from CORE-MATH
>> project' instead of specifying each file.  So possible future new file won't need
>> to mess with the LICENSES file (since Florian's idea is to eventually remove it
>> anyway).
>
> ok, but the copyright line (which Florian asked me to add) differs from one
> file to the other one, depending on the author(s) of the file.
>
> I don't see how to solve this.

Yes, we have this problem with existing entries in LICENSES, which makes
the claim at the start of the file really dubious.  That's the reason
why I suggested to remove it altogether.

A lot of people interpret the terms “the above copyright notice” or
“this notice” commonly found in permissive licenses in such a way that
they do not apply to the actual line containing the string “Copyright”.
Our LICENSES file seems to have been constructed with this
interpretation in mind.  I just don't think that it's an accurate
reading of these notices.

Thanks,
Florian
  
Paul Zimmermann Oct. 24, 2024, 4:01 p.m. UTC | #4
Hi Florian,

> Yes, we have this problem with existing entries in LICENSES, which makes
> the claim at the start of the file really dubious.  That's the reason
> why I suggested to remove it altogether.
> 
> A lot of people interpret the terms “the above copyright notice” or
> “this notice” commonly found in permissive licenses in such a way that
> they do not apply to the actual line containing the string “Copyright”.
> Our LICENSES file seems to have been constructed with this
> interpretation in mind.  I just don't think that it's an accurate
> reading of these notices.

how should we proceed?

Leave the current version of the patch with the indication of the exact files
and their corresponding copyright line? If new files from CORE-MATH are used,
this might require indicating for each copyright line to which file it applies.

Or remove the copyright lines from LICENSES, and redirect to the
corresponding files? For example I might add a sentence like "Please refer
to the corresponding files for the copyright lines". This will not need
to update again LICENSES if new files from CORE-MATH are used.

Or another better solution?

Paul
  
Florian Weimer Oct. 24, 2024, 4:45 p.m. UTC | #5
* Paul Zimmermann:

>        Hi Florian,
>
>> Yes, we have this problem with existing entries in LICENSES, which makes
>> the claim at the start of the file really dubious.  That's the reason
>> why I suggested to remove it altogether.
>> 
>> A lot of people interpret the terms “the above copyright notice” or
>> “this notice” commonly found in permissive licenses in such a way that
>> they do not apply to the actual line containing the string “Copyright”.
>> Our LICENSES file seems to have been constructed with this
>> interpretation in mind.  I just don't think that it's an accurate
>> reading of these notices.
>
> how should we proceed?

Add the entire copyright notice from that single file.

Thanks,
Florian
  
Adhemerval Zanella Netto Oct. 24, 2024, 5:31 p.m. UTC | #6
On 24/10/24 13:45, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Paul Zimmermann:
> 
>>        Hi Florian,
>>
>>> Yes, we have this problem with existing entries in LICENSES, which makes
>>> the claim at the start of the file really dubious.  That's the reason
>>> why I suggested to remove it altogether.
>>>
>>> A lot of people interpret the terms “the above copyright notice” or
>>> “this notice” commonly found in permissive licenses in such a way that
>>> they do not apply to the actual line containing the string “Copyright”.
>>> Our LICENSES file seems to have been constructed with this
>>> interpretation in mind.  I just don't think that it's an accurate
>>> reading of these notices.
>>
>> how should we proceed?
> 
> Add the entire copyright notice from that single file.

So I think the patch should be ok for now then.
  
Adhemerval Zanella Netto Oct. 25, 2024, 11:57 a.m. UTC | #7
On 24/10/24 14:31, Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote:
> 
> 
> On 24/10/24 13:45, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Paul Zimmermann:
>>
>>>        Hi Florian,
>>>
>>>> Yes, we have this problem with existing entries in LICENSES, which makes
>>>> the claim at the start of the file really dubious.  That's the reason
>>>> why I suggested to remove it altogether.
>>>>
>>>> A lot of people interpret the terms “the above copyright notice” or
>>>> “this notice” commonly found in permissive licenses in such a way that
>>>> they do not apply to the actual line containing the string “Copyright”.
>>>> Our LICENSES file seems to have been constructed with this
>>>> interpretation in mind.  I just don't think that it's an accurate
>>>> reading of these notices.
>>>
>>> how should we proceed?
>>
>> Add the entire copyright notice from that single file.
> 
> So I think the patch should be ok for now then.
> 

LGTM, thanks.

Reviewed-by: Adhemerval Zanella  <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
  

Patch

diff --git a/LICENSES b/LICENSES
index f4b24c1a41..e9c3c812f2 100644
--- a/LICENSES
+++ b/LICENSES
@@ -410,3 +410,26 @@  IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
 CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
 TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
 SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
+
+The sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32/e_gammaf_r.c file, taken from the CORE-MATH
+project, is distributed under the following license:
+
+Copyright (c) 2023-2024 Alexei Sibidanov.
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.