From: Andreas A. <ar...@li...> - 2025-06-12 13:21:36
|
Hi Folks, On Mon, Jun 02 2025, Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Sun, 2025-06-01 at 17:47 +0200, Paul Floyd wrote: >> On 6/1/25 15:22, Mark Wielaard wrote: >> > I think an upgrade to GPLv3+ for valgrind is a good idea. It would >> > also allow us to upgrade some gdbserver parts (various files under >> > coregrind/m_gdbserver). Note that the new vgstack utility is already >> > derived from GPLv3+ code. >> > >> > We could make that a goal for 3.26.0 (or maybe that deserves finally >> > going to 4.0?) for our October release. I can contact the FSF legal >> > team to ask if they want to help with or see any issues with such an >> > upgrade if we want to incorporate more GPLv3+ code from the core >> > toolchain projects. >> >> Licence-wise, I don't have much of an opinion. It would be nice to be >> able to integrate code more easily. >> >> There are two kinds of projects that might get impacted. Third-party >> ports, I guess they will just accept moving to GPL3+. > > Yes. Or they keep on 3.25.x. But I hope the long term goal of any > third-party port would be to eventually get included upstream. Although > I admit we have at times been really slow incorporating new ports. > >> Then there is VEX. >> The main project that I know of is PyVEX https://github.com/angr/pyvex >> which seems to be under a BSD licence. That looks wrong to me to start with. > > I think that is not deliberately wrong, just slightly confused. They > should probably mention top-level that they are (re)distributing > various parts under the GPL (see e.g. the pyvex_c and vex subdirs, > which properly carry GPL notices). Which means the project as a whole > also is distributed GPL, even if parts of the source code could also be > reused under the BSD license as long as it isn't derived from the GPL > parts. Sounds like everyone is OK with this in principle, right? FWIW, I'd like that too. For s390x it would certainly simplify things quite a bit. -- Andreas |