From: Borut R. <bor...@si...> - 2010-07-25 16:41:58
|
Hi sdcc developers, I'm near to the end of " change sdcc libraries license to GPL+LE" task. There still some sdcc library files without changed licenses because: * the authors (copyright holders) haven't respond me with the agreement for license change. I intent to try to contact them again, with a statement that if I won't get the answer in two weeks, I'll assume that they agree with the license change. What do you think about this option? * the files were automatically generated. This is mostly related to pic / pic16 device definition files. Who should be the copyright holder for such files: the person who wrote the conversion script, the person who made the first svn commit of such a file or ...? I would really like to know your opinions, so please respond to this mail! In the mean time we can start the discussion about the sdcc 3.0.0 release. There are quite some bugs on the SDCC 2.0.0 Release list at https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sdcc/wiki/SDCC%203.0.0%20Release. Does anybody intent to fix them? Currently there are 112 open bugs in the bug tracker. I would really like to keep this number below 100 for the release. I would like to know about your plans, so again: please respond to this mail! Borut |
From: Philipp K. K. <pk...@sp...> - 2010-07-25 17:11:21
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Am 25.07.2010 18:41, schrieb Borut Razem: > Hi sdcc developers, > > I'm near to the end of " change sdcc libraries license to GPL+LE" task. > > There still some sdcc library files without changed licenses because: > > * the authors (copyright holders) haven't respond me with the > agreement for license change. I intent to try to contact them > again, with a statement that if I won't get the answer in two > weeks, I'll assume that they agree with the license change. > What do you think about this option? I don't think there's any jurisdiction on this planet where that would be OK. We'll have to remove and rewrite these files or leave them with their old license. How many and which files are these? > * the files were automatically generated. This is mostly related to > pic / pic16 device definition files. Who should be the copyright > holder for such files: the person who wrote the conversion script, > the person who made the first svn commit of such a file or ...? For a file C generated from file A using converter B the copyright holder would IMO be the one who wrote file A, and depending on how much has been added to C by B the author of B. If sorting out this relicensing stuff seems to messy for the 3.0 release, I'd say we could go ahead as long as the files that do not have a license compatible with GPL+LE only affect some ports. > I would really like to know your opinions, so please respond to this mail! > > In the mean time we can start the discussion about the sdcc 3.0.0 > release. There are quite some bugs on the SDCC 2.0.0 Release list at > https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sdcc/wiki/SDCC%203.0.0%20Release. Does > anybody intent to fix them? > Currently there are 112 open bugs in the bug tracker. I would really > like to keep this number below 100 for the release. > > I would like to know about your plans, so again: please respond to this > mail! > > Borut Sounds good. I might not have much time, but will try to look into all 80-specific bugs (including two that currently are not in the tracker, but will be once I've got enough info). Philipp -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkxMcDEACgkQbtUV+xsoLpqcxwCghRc/rihGpqIQl32lDg1BjYx5 g9QAoKFnIh0+xcXdx51vqQ+OkO+3yaGH =UX5E -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Borut R. <bor...@si...> - 2010-07-25 17:46:14
|
Phillip, thanks for the response. See may comments below. Borut On 07/25/2010 07:11 PM, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Am 25.07.2010 18:41, schrieb Borut Razem: > >> Hi sdcc developers, >> >> I'm near to the end of " change sdcc libraries license to GPL+LE" task. >> >> There still some sdcc library files without changed licenses because: >> >> * the authors (copyright holders) haven't respond me with the >> agreement for license change. I intent to try to contact them >> again, with a statement that if I won't get the answer in two >> weeks, I'll assume that they agree with the license change. >> What do you think about this option? >> > I don't think there's any jurisdiction on this planet where that would > be OK. I knew that someone will make such a response, but I tried it anyway :-( > We'll have to remove and rewrite these files or leave them with > their old license. > How many and which files are these? > > Here is the list, extracted from http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sdcc/wiki/Files%20and%20Licenses: mcs51: ./include/mcs51/at89c55.h Bernd Bartmann ./include/mcs51/at89S8252.h Michael Schmitt ./include/mcs51/at89s8253.h Krzysztof Polomka ./include/mcs51/at89x51.h Bernd Bartmann ./include/mcs51/at89x52.h Bernd Bartmann ./include/mcs51/cc1110.h Pravin Angolkar ./include/mcs51/msc1210.h Philippe Latu ./include/mcs51/P89c51RD2.h Omar Espinosa ./include/mcs51/P89LPC901.h Omar Espinosa ./include/mcs51/P89LPC922.h Omar Espinosa ./include/mcs51/P89LPC932.h Omar Espinosa ./include/mcs51/reg764.h Robert Lacoste ./include/mcs51/ser.h we ./include/mcs51/ser_ir.h Josef Wolf ./include/mcs51/serial.h Dmitry S. Obukhov ./include/mcs51/XC866.h Llewellyn van Zyl ds390: ./include/ds80c390.h Johan Knol ./include/ds390/serial390.h Johan Knol ./lib/ds390/i2c390.c Johan Knol ./lib/ds390/tinibios.c Johan Knol ./lib/ds390/lcd390.c Johan Knol ./lib/ds390/rtc390.c Johan Knol ds400: ./lib/ds400/tinibios.c Johan Knol z80: ./include/z80/z180.h Peter Townson hc08: ./include/hc08/mc68hc908jkjl.h Lucas Loizaga ./include/hc08/mc68hc908apxx.h Lucas Loizaga ./lib/hc08/_divuint.c Jean-Louis Vern ./lib/hc08/_divulong.c Jean-Louis Vern ./lib/hc08/_mullong.c Jean-Louis Vern pic16: ./lib/pic16/libc/stdlib/g_ftoa.c George Gallant ./lib/pic16/libc/utils/cvtdec.S George Gallant ./lib/pic16/libsdcc/char/divuchar.c Jean-Louis Vern ./lib/pic16/libsdcc/int/divuint.c Jean-Louis Vern ./lib/pic16/libsdcc/long/divulong.c Jean-Louis Vern >> * the files were automatically generated. This is mostly related to >> pic / pic16 device definition files. Who should be the copyright >> holder for such files: the person who wrote the conversion script, >> the person who made the first svn commit of such a file or ...? >> > For a file C generated from file A using converter B the copyright > holder would IMO be the one who wrote file A, and depending on how much > has been added to C by B the author of B. > > If sorting out this relicensing stuff seems to messy for the 3.0 > release, I'd say we could go ahead as long as the files that do not have > a license compatible with GPL+LE only affect some ports. > > >> I would really like to know your opinions, so please respond to this mail! >> >> In the mean time we can start the discussion about the sdcc 3.0.0 >> release. There are quite some bugs on the SDCC 2.0.0 Release list at >> https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sdcc/wiki/SDCC%203.0.0%20Release. Does >> anybody intent to fix them? >> Currently there are 112 open bugs in the bug tracker. I would really >> like to keep this number below 100 for the release. >> >> I would like to know about your plans, so again: please respond to this >> mail! >> >> Borut >> > Sounds good. I might not have much time, but will try to look into all > 80-specific bugs (including two that currently are not in the tracker, > but will be once I've got enough info). > > Philipp > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAkxMcDEACgkQbtUV+xsoLpqcxwCghRc/rihGpqIQl32lDg1BjYx5 > g9QAoKFnIh0+xcXdx51vqQ+OkO+3yaGH > =UX5E > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint > What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? > Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first > _______________________________________________ > sdcc-devel mailing list > sdc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-devel > > |
From: Borut R. <bor...@si...> - 2010-07-25 18:23:59
|
I forgot to list files from the "Generic" table. The (hopefuly) complete table is at http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sdcc/wiki/Files%20and%20Licenses <https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sdcc/wiki/Files%20and%20Licenses>, table "Missing confirmations for license change 2010-07-25". If anybody knows how to contact persons on the list, please let me know or contact them directly and kindly ask them to send their license change confirmation to sdcc-devel mailnig list. Borut On 07/25/2010 07:46 PM, Borut Razem wrote: > Phillip, thanks for the response. > See may comments below. > > Borut > > On 07/25/2010 07:11 PM, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Am 25.07.2010 18:41, schrieb Borut Razem: >>> Hi sdcc developers, >>> >>> I'm near to the end of " change sdcc libraries license to GPL+LE" task. >>> >>> There still some sdcc library files without changed licenses because: >>> >>> * the authors (copyright holders) haven't respond me with the >>> agreement for license change. I intent to try to contact them >>> again, with a statement that if I won't get the answer in two >>> weeks, I'll assume that they agree with the license change. >>> What do you think about this option? >> I don't think there's any jurisdiction on this planet where that would >> be OK. > > I knew that someone will make such a response, but I tried it anyway :-( > >> We'll have to remove and rewrite these files or leave them with >> their old license. >> How many and which files are these? >> > > Here is the list, extracted from > http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sdcc/wiki/Files%20and%20Licenses: > > mcs51: > ./include/mcs51/at89c55.h Bernd Bartmann > ./include/mcs51/at89S8252.h Michael Schmitt > ./include/mcs51/at89s8253.h Krzysztof Polomka > ./include/mcs51/at89x51.h Bernd Bartmann > ./include/mcs51/at89x52.h Bernd Bartmann > ./include/mcs51/cc1110.h Pravin Angolkar > ./include/mcs51/msc1210.h Philippe Latu > ./include/mcs51/P89c51RD2.h Omar Espinosa > ./include/mcs51/P89LPC901.h Omar Espinosa > ./include/mcs51/P89LPC922.h Omar Espinosa > ./include/mcs51/P89LPC932.h Omar Espinosa > ./include/mcs51/reg764.h Robert Lacoste > ./include/mcs51/ser.h we > ./include/mcs51/ser_ir.h Josef Wolf > ./include/mcs51/serial.h Dmitry S. Obukhov > ./include/mcs51/XC866.h Llewellyn van Zyl > > ds390: > ./include/ds80c390.h Johan Knol > ./include/ds390/serial390.h Johan Knol > ./lib/ds390/i2c390.c Johan Knol > ./lib/ds390/tinibios.c Johan Knol > ./lib/ds390/lcd390.c Johan Knol > ./lib/ds390/rtc390.c Johan Knol > > ds400: > ./lib/ds400/tinibios.c Johan Knol > > z80: > ./include/z80/z180.h Peter Townson > > hc08: > ./include/hc08/mc68hc908jkjl.h Lucas Loizaga > ./include/hc08/mc68hc908apxx.h Lucas Loizaga > ./lib/hc08/_divuint.c Jean-Louis Vern > ./lib/hc08/_divulong.c Jean-Louis Vern > ./lib/hc08/_mullong.c Jean-Louis Vern > > pic16: > ./lib/pic16/libc/stdlib/g_ftoa.c George Gallant > ./lib/pic16/libc/utils/cvtdec.S George Gallant > ./lib/pic16/libsdcc/char/divuchar.c Jean-Louis Vern > ./lib/pic16/libsdcc/int/divuint.c Jean-Louis Vern > ./lib/pic16/libsdcc/long/divulong.c Jean-Louis Vern > >>> * the files were automatically generated. This is mostly >>> related to >>> pic / pic16 device definition files. Who should be the copyright >>> holder for such files: the person who wrote the conversion >>> script, >>> the person who made the first svn commit of such a file or ...? >> For a file C generated from file A using converter B the copyright >> holder would IMO be the one who wrote file A, and depending on how much >> has been added to C by B the author of B. >> >> If sorting out this relicensing stuff seems to messy for the 3.0 >> release, I'd say we could go ahead as long as the files that do not have >> a license compatible with GPL+LE only affect some ports. >> >>> I would really like to know your opinions, so please respond to this >>> mail! >>> >>> In the mean time we can start the discussion about the sdcc 3.0.0 >>> release. There are quite some bugs on the SDCC 2.0.0 Release list at >>> https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sdcc/wiki/SDCC%203.0.0%20Release. >>> Does >>> anybody intent to fix them? >>> Currently there are 112 open bugs in the bug tracker. I would really >>> like to keep this number below 100 for the release. >>> >>> I would like to know about your plans, so again: please respond to this >>> mail! >>> >>> Borut >> Sounds good. I might not have much time, but will try to look into all >> 80-specific bugs (including two that currently are not in the tracker, >> but will be once I've got enough info). >> >> Philipp >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ >> >> iEYEARECAAYFAkxMcDEACgkQbtUV+xsoLpqcxwCghRc/rihGpqIQl32lDg1BjYx5 >> g9QAoKFnIh0+xcXdx51vqQ+OkO+3yaGH >> =UX5E >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint >> What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? >> Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first >> _______________________________________________ >> sdcc-devel mailing list >> sdc...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-devel >> > |
From: Philipp K. K. <pk...@sp...> - 2010-09-13 11:47:40
|
Am 25.07.2010 20:23, schrieb Borut Razem: > I forgot to list files from the "Generic" table. > The (hopefuly) complete table is at > http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sdcc/wiki/Files%20and%20Licenses > <https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sdcc/wiki/Files%20and%20Licenses>, > table "Missing confirmations for license change 2010-07-25". > > If anybody knows how to contact persons on the list, please let me know > or contact them directly and kindly ask them to send their license > change confirmation to sdcc-devel mailnig list. > > Borut "Robert Lacoste" is a rather common name as well. However there is one prominant figure in the embedded systems field of that name. He regularly publishes in "Circuit Cellar" and has founded the embedded systems company "ALCIOM" (http://www.alciom.com). He lives in France, as does the Robert Lacoste that wrote the file in sdcc. Philipp |
From: Philipp K. K. <pk...@sp...> - 2010-09-13 11:56:39
|
Sorry, for accidentially sending this message to the list, it was intended to be a private email. Philipp |
From: Maarten B. <sou...@ds...> - 2010-07-25 21:31:50
|
Hi Borut, My main interest with SDCC is to remove as many bugs as possible. I also prefer < 100 for the release. I must admit I haven't looked at the wiki bug list for a long time. The bugs I'm currently looking into are not even on it. Maarten > Hi sdcc developers, > > I'm near to the end of " change sdcc libraries license to GPL+LE" task. > > There still some sdcc library files without changed licenses because: > > * the authors (copyright holders) haven't respond me with the > agreement for license change. I intent to try to contact them > again, with a statement that if I won't get the answer in two > weeks, I'll assume that they agree with the license change. > What do you think about this option? > * the files were automatically generated. This is mostly related to > pic / pic16 device definition files. Who should be the copyright > holder for such files: the person who wrote the conversion script, > the person who made the first svn commit of such a file or ...? > > I would really like to know your opinions, so please respond to this mail! > > In the mean time we can start the discussion about the sdcc 3.0.0 > release. There are quite some bugs on the SDCC 2.0.0 Release list at > https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sdcc/wiki/SDCC%203.0.0%20Release. Does > anybody intent to fix them? > > Currently there are 112 open bugs in the bug tracker. I would really > like to keep this number below 100 for the release. > > I would like to know about your plans, so again: please respond to this > mail! > > Borut > |
From: Maarten B. <sou...@ds...> - 2010-08-26 18:22:59
|
Dear Developers, Today Philipp and I have reached below the magic border of 100 bugs again. It was hard work since while working on them several new were also reported or found. I sincerely hope not too many hidden new ones have been introduced. I still have 38 bugs on my list that I would like to see fixed before doing a 3.0.0 release but I think that is not feasible. Half of them were reported after the 2.9.0 release. Should they get priority or the other way around? Still I would like we'd start discussing a release, so this year will not go by without one. Maarten > Hi Borut, > > My main interest with SDCC is to remove as many bugs as > possible. I also prefer < 100 for the release. I must > admit I haven't looked at the wiki bug list for a long > time. The bugs I'm currently looking into are not even > on it. > > Maarten > > > Hi sdcc developers, > > > > I'm near to the end of " change sdcc libraries license to GPL+LE" task. > > > > There still some sdcc library files without changed licenses because: > > > > * the authors (copyright holders) haven't respond me with the > > agreement for license change. I intent to try to contact them > > again, with a statement that if I won't get the answer in two > > weeks, I'll assume that they agree with the license change. > > What do you think about this option? > > * the files were automatically generated. This is mostly related to > > pic / pic16 device definition files. Who should be the copyright > > holder for such files: the person who wrote the conversion script, > > the person who made the first svn commit of such a file or ...? > > > > I would really like to know your opinions, so please respond to this mail! > > > > In the mean time we can start the discussion about the sdcc 3.0.0 > > release. There are quite some bugs on the SDCC 2.0.0 Release list at > > https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sdcc/wiki/SDCC%203.0.0%20Release. Does > > anybody intent to fix them? > > > > Currently there are 112 open bugs in the bug tracker. I would really > > like to keep this number below 100 for the release. > > > > I would like to know about your plans, so again: please respond to this > > mail! > > > > Borut |
From: Philipp K. K. <pk...@sp...> - 2010-09-12 16:09:33
|
Am 26.08.2010 20:22, schrieb Maarten Brock: > I still have 38 bugs on my list that I would like to see > fixed before doing a 3.0.0 release but I think that is > not feasible. Half of them were reported after the 2.9.0 > release. Should they get priority or the other way > around? I would suggest that the new ones _that are regressions_ should get priority, to not break anything that compiled correctly with 2.9.0. Philipp |
From: Borut R. <bor...@si...> - 2010-09-11 15:38:16
|
Here is my proposition for sdcc 3.0.0 release schedule: 2010-09-26: RC1 2010-10-10: RC2 2010-10-10: Release If nobody else is willing to take the role of release manager, I'll do it. Waiting for your comments... Borut On 08/26/2010 08:22 PM, Maarten Brock wrote: > Dear Developers, > > Today Philipp and I have reached below the magic border > of 100 bugs again. It was hard work since while working > on them several new were also reported or found. I > sincerely hope not too many hidden new ones have been > introduced. > > I still have 38 bugs on my list that I would like to see > fixed before doing a 3.0.0 release but I think that is > not feasible. Half of them were reported after the 2.9.0 > release. Should they get priority or the other way > around? > > Still I would like we'd start discussing a release, so > this year will not go by without one. > > Maarten > > >> Hi Borut, >> >> My main interest with SDCC is to remove as many bugs as >> possible. I also prefer< 100 for the release. I must >> admit I haven't looked at the wiki bug list for a long >> time. The bugs I'm currently looking into are not even >> on it. >> >> Maarten >> >> >>> Hi sdcc developers, >>> >>> I'm near to the end of " change sdcc libraries license to GPL+LE" task. >>> >>> There still some sdcc library files without changed licenses because: >>> >>> * the authors (copyright holders) haven't respond me with the >>> agreement for license change. I intent to try to contact them >>> again, with a statement that if I won't get the answer in two >>> weeks, I'll assume that they agree with the license change. >>> What do you think about this option? >>> * the files were automatically generated. This is mostly related to >>> pic / pic16 device definition files. Who should be the copyright >>> holder for such files: the person who wrote the conversion script, >>> the person who made the first svn commit of such a file or ...? >>> >>> I would really like to know your opinions, so please respond to this mail! >>> >>> In the mean time we can start the discussion about the sdcc 3.0.0 >>> release. There are quite some bugs on the SDCC 2.0.0 Release list at >>> https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sdcc/wiki/SDCC%203.0.0%20Release. Does >>> anybody intent to fix them? >>> >>> Currently there are 112 open bugs in the bug tracker. I would really >>> like to keep this number below 100 for the release. >>> >>> I would like to know about your plans, so again: please respond to this >>> mail! >>> >>> Borut >>> |
From: Borut R. <bor...@si...> - 2010-09-11 18:46:03
|
2010-09-26: RC1 2010-10-10: RC2 2010-10-17: Release ;-) Borut On 09/11/2010 05:38 PM, Borut Razem wrote: > Here is my proposition for sdcc 3.0.0 release schedule: > > 2010-09-26: RC1 > 2010-10-10: RC2 > 2010-10-10: Release > > If nobody else is willing to take the role of release manager, I'll do it. > > Waiting for your comments... > > Borut > > > On 08/26/2010 08:22 PM, Maarten Brock wrote: > >> Dear Developers, >> >> Today Philipp and I have reached below the magic border >> of 100 bugs again. It was hard work since while working >> on them several new were also reported or found. I >> sincerely hope not too many hidden new ones have been >> introduced. >> >> I still have 38 bugs on my list that I would like to see >> fixed before doing a 3.0.0 release but I think that is >> not feasible. Half of them were reported after the 2.9.0 >> release. Should they get priority or the other way >> around? >> >> Still I would like we'd start discussing a release, so >> this year will not go by without one. >> >> Maarten >> >> >> >>> Hi Borut, >>> >>> My main interest with SDCC is to remove as many bugs as >>> possible. I also prefer< 100 for the release. I must >>> admit I haven't looked at the wiki bug list for a long >>> time. The bugs I'm currently looking into are not even >>> on it. >>> >>> Maarten >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi sdcc developers, >>>> >>>> I'm near to the end of " change sdcc libraries license to GPL+LE" task. >>>> >>>> There still some sdcc library files without changed licenses because: >>>> >>>> * the authors (copyright holders) haven't respond me with the >>>> agreement for license change. I intent to try to contact them >>>> again, with a statement that if I won't get the answer in two >>>> weeks, I'll assume that they agree with the license change. >>>> What do you think about this option? >>>> * the files were automatically generated. This is mostly related to >>>> pic / pic16 device definition files. Who should be the copyright >>>> holder for such files: the person who wrote the conversion script, >>>> the person who made the first svn commit of such a file or ...? >>>> >>>> I would really like to know your opinions, so please respond to this mail! >>>> >>>> In the mean time we can start the discussion about the sdcc 3.0.0 >>>> release. There are quite some bugs on the SDCC 2.0.0 Release list at >>>> https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sdcc/wiki/SDCC%203.0.0%20Release. Does >>>> anybody intent to fix them? >>>> >>>> Currently there are 112 open bugs in the bug tracker. I would really >>>> like to keep this number below 100 for the release. >>>> >>>> I would like to know about your plans, so again: please respond to this >>>> mail! >>>> >>>> Borut >>>> >>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances > and start using them to simplify application deployment and > accelerate your shift to cloud computing > http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev > _______________________________________________ > sdcc-devel mailing list > sdc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-devel > > |
From: Philipp K. K. <pk...@sp...> - 2010-09-12 16:35:21
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 What shall we do about the 6 open (and 4 qusidone) items at http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sdcc/wiki/SDCC%203.0.0%20Release ? IMO #2870755 is the most important, since it seems to be the main disadvantage sdcc has over other compilers often resulting in sdcc-generated code being more than twice the size than what others can do. Nevertheless it is the one most likely to break something, thus I suggest to postpone it. #1196045 only affects hc08, so postponing would probably be ok. #1477149 and #1406219, #1505956 could be more complicated to fix, and thus to avoid regressions, could be postphoned. How about #2942343? The 3 quasidone items related to bool probably should probably be completed for at least hc08, pic14 and pic16 since those three need it the most, currently not having any bool at all. #2932327 is the quasidone library license conversion. Looking at https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sdcc/wiki/Files%20and%20Licenses it seems most remeining problematically licensed files are port-specific, which IMO is tolerable for sdcc 3.0. However there are three that look like they could taint multiple ports: ./lib/_decdptr.c, ./lib/_divuint.c, ./lib/_divulong.c, all by Jean-Louis Vern? Do these really affect multiple ports? If yes, something should be done about it, even if that means delaying the sdcc 3.0.0 release. Furthermore IMO users should be warned about problematically licensed files. A #warning per file should do. Philipp -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkyNATwACgkQbtUV+xsoLpoyjQCg7PgwROC0km8hPwjCpjjoSV9Z joAAni6QkuVu3suaPMCsrSrm/mc4kId0 =OvvF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Borut R. <bor...@si...> - 2010-09-12 17:15:55
|
Hi Philipp, my opinion is that we should make the release, even that everything is not in the shape we would like it to be (actually it never is). Even if we postpone the release, there is no guarantee if/when the remaining issues will be fixed. About "change sdcc libraries license to GPL+LE": the most critical are the functions written by Jean-Louis Vern, which are "core" functions used on all targets. I tried to reach him several times, but I always received the undeliverable e-mail message. I asked Google, but didn't find any useful info. I even asked Sandeep if he knowns how to contact Jean-Louis Vern, but he don't have any additional contact info. So I gave up hope :-( . I propose to leave it as it is for the 3.0.0 release. After that we have to consider to rewrite the missing functions... The other missing items are platform specific and I still hope that we will get the permission to change the license at least for some of them. I like the #warning idea. I propose to do it in the way that it is shown only in case the (for example) CLOSED_SOURCE symbol is defined. Borut On 09/12/2010 06:35 PM, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > What shall we do about the 6 open (and 4 qusidone) items at > http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sdcc/wiki/SDCC%203.0.0%20Release > ? > > IMO #2870755 is the most important, since it seems to be the main > disadvantage sdcc has over other compilers often resulting in > sdcc-generated code being more than twice the size than what others can > do. Nevertheless it is the one most likely to break something, thus I > suggest to postpone it. > > #1196045 only affects hc08, so postponing would probably be ok. > > #1477149 and #1406219, #1505956 could be more complicated to fix, and > thus to avoid regressions, could be postphoned. > > How about #2942343? > > The 3 quasidone items related to bool probably should probably be > completed for at least hc08, pic14 and pic16 since those three need it > the most, currently not having any bool at all. > > #2932327 is the quasidone library license conversion. Looking at > https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sdcc/wiki/Files%20and%20Licenses it > seems most remeining problematically licensed files are port-specific, > which IMO is tolerable for sdcc 3.0. However there are three that look > like they could taint multiple ports: ./lib/_decdptr.c, > ./lib/_divuint.c, ./lib/_divulong.c, all by Jean-Louis Vern? Do these > really affect multiple ports? If yes, something should be done about it, > even if that means delaying the sdcc 3.0.0 release. > Furthermore IMO users should be warned about problematically licensed > files. A #warning per file should do. > > Philipp > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAkyNATwACgkQbtUV+xsoLpoyjQCg7PgwROC0km8hPwjCpjjoSV9Z > joAAni6QkuVu3suaPMCsrSrm/mc4kId0 > =OvvF > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances > and start using them to simplify application deployment and > accelerate your shift to cloud computing > http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev > _______________________________________________ > sdcc-devel mailing list > sdc...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-devel > > |
From: Philipp K. K. <pk...@sp...> - 2010-09-12 17:26:55
|
Am 12.09.2010 19:15, schrieb Borut Razem: > About "change sdcc libraries license to GPL+LE": the most critical are > the functions written by Jean-Louis Vern, which are "core" functions > used on all targets. I tried to reach him several times, but I always > received the undeliverable e-mail message. I asked Google, but didn't > find any useful info. I even asked Sandeep if he knowns how to contact > Jean-Louis Vern, but he don't have any additional contact info. > > So I gave up hope :-( . I propose to leave it as it is for the 3.0.0 > release. After that we have to consider to rewrite the missing functions... I just sent you some information on contacting Jean-Lois Vern and George Gallant, I hope it helps. > > The other missing items are platform specific and I still hope that we > will get the permission to change the license at least for some of them. > > I like the #warning idea. I propose to do it in the way that it is shown > only in case the (for example) CLOSED_SOURCE symbol is defined. > The current license is not just a problem for non-free software. There probably are lots of LGPL-incompatible licenses, though I don't expect the list to be as long as for the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses) And some of the files are not even explicitly licensed under LGPL, thus are potentially trouble for any and all uses. However we probably should at least make the warnings verbose enough to tell about the specific issue (from "This file is under LGPL" to "This file has unclear license status") Philipp |