Re: [Nasm-devel] Question on licensing of the instruction reference

[Frank K. <fbk...@my...>]

C. Masloch wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Can the instruction reference be used according to the new NASM (2-clause  
> BSD) licence as well?
> 
> NASM's relicensing was completed around ecfba9d (on 2009-07-06), available  
> here using the web interface:  
> http://repo.or.cz/w/nasm.git/commit/ecfba9d6abdda57383f61031ab3406efba2769b3
> 
> The instruction reference was removed from the sources with 03b9f94 (on  
> 2009-05-09),  
> http://repo.or.cz/w/nasm.git?a=commit;h=03b9f941336d901e32054efc8cda20a3cc3916d3
> 
> No changes were applied to the doc/insref.src file after its extraction  
>  from doc/nasmdoc.src by 9b49e24,  
> http://repo.or.cz/w/nasm.git/commitdiff/9b49e24e1fe1a4afc021f6c3a01720fcabdc47ca
> 
> So next the annotations of that part of doc/nasmdoc.src from 62cb606 (the  
> parent of the extraction, 9b49e24) are relevant, (the last part of)  
> http://repo.or.cz/w/nasm.git/blame/62cb606f6876b01c5d89ad00b6d3d4a3a2ffccf2:/doc/nasmdoc.src
> 
> This indicates that all the relevant changes are recorded as checked in by  
> Peter, Keith, Debbie, and Frank. I don't know whether that means that only  
> the four of you would be relevant for the licensing, though. Hence, it  
> seems best to ask you here.
> 
> Regards,
> Chris

Hi Chris,

I believe the original document was written by Simon Tatham (possible 
input from Julian Hall?). I'm happy with any changes I'm responsible for 
to be under 2-clause BSD. (I suspect that the license change would apply 
to this anyway, but... TGIANAL)

If you're anticipating any changes, a notation of which instructions 
affect which flags would be a big improvement, IMO.

Best,
Frank