<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000'><br><hr id="zwchr"><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><b>From: </b>"Daniel Berlin" <dberlin@dberlin.org><br><b>To: </b>reviews+D13072+public+f7da66e91204bdbf@reviews.llvm.org<br><b>Cc: </b>"Simone Atzeni" <simone@cs.utah.edu>, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel@anl.gov>, "Andrey Churbanov" <andrey.churbanov@intel.com>, "James H Cownie" <james.h.cownie@intel.com>, "Jonathan L Peyton" <jonathan.l.peyton@intel.com>, "protze joachim" <protze.joachim@gmail.com>, Hahnfeld@itc.rwth-aachen.de, openmp-commits@lists.llvm.org, "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc@gmail.com><br><b>Sent: </b>Thursday, October 13, 2016 9:38:53 AM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [PATCH] D13072: [OpenMP] Enable ThreadSanitizer to check OpenMP programs<br><br><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Hal Finkel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hfinkel@anl.gov" target="_blank">hfinkel@anl.gov</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">hfinkel added a comment.<br>
<br>
In <a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/D13072#256043" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://reviews.llvm.org/D13072#256043</a>, @dberlin wrote:<br>
<span class=""><br>
> In <a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/D13072#252598" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://reviews.llvm.org/D13072#252598</a>, @jcownie wrote:<br>
><br>
> > It generally looks fine to me.<br>
> ><br>
> > My one concern is over the licence in the header file. It looks like a BSD-ish licence, but it's not the same as either of the licences which apply to the rest of the code ( <a href="http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/openmp/trunk/LICENSE.txt" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/openmp/trunk/LICENSE.txt</a> ). (Of course, IANAL).<br>
><br>
><br>
> Urf. Speaking as a lawyer, in practice, this doesn't matter.<br>
><br>
> However, we should fix all of these, not just the Google one.<br>
><br>
> The BSD license in that project should not be the license we use. We have generally not given credit to specific groups *in the license*, as that LICENSE does, but instead elsewhere. The license should be the same license we use for runtime libraries elsewhere (which is not even BSD, but MIT).<br>
><br>
</span><span class="">> I'll start a thread about this.<br>
<br>
<br>
</span>@dberlin , how do we move forward here? Having the OpenMP runtime library work well with TSan is important.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>These licenses really need to be changed out for the llvm license (or the proposed license + exception).</div><div><br></div><div>Right now, any openMP using program has to be reproducing this entire license text, plus nobody has ever evaluated that the ARM license in there is really open source/compatible with other licenses.</div><div><br></div><div id="DWT26053">I believe when I mentioned this issue to various folks, the answer was basically "we didn't realize it had gotten accepted with this set of licenses".</div></div></div></div></blockquote>My understanding is that no one intended an unusual set of licenses, the note at the top of the LICENSE.txt documents the intent, which is to have the UI/NCSA-MIT dual license, plus the patent grants from Intel and ARM. Perhaps unfortunately, the patent grants also appear to be copyright licenses (although without any reproduction requirements themselves). Is that confusing things?<br><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><div><br></div><div>So my strong suggestion is that we just fix this.<br></div><div><br></div><div id="DWT26054">We may want to wait until the llvm license issues are finalized if we can, but if we can't, the clear path forward is to license it at least *consistently* and without N different copyright notices.</div></div></div></div></blockquote>I assume that all of this will need to be cleared up if we switch licenses, but...<br><br>I want to clarify what to do with *this* patch, which contains a file with yet-another license. dynamic_annotations.h specifically, which has an MIT/BSDish license. The copyright line here says Google (I believe it came out of Chromium originally), and so it might be the case that the person with the most power here to fix/normalize the licensing situation of this file is you. We need to figure out if this can be done, and if not, what parts we need to reimplement so we can move forward.<br><br>Thanks again,<br>Hal<br><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><div><br></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote><br><br><br>-- <br><div><span name="x"></span>Hal Finkel<br>Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages<br>Leadership Computing Facility<br>Argonne National Laboratory<span name="x"></span><br></div></div></body></html>