[PATCH] D112730: [clang-tidy] Add AUTOSAR module

[Carlos Galvez via Phabricator via cfe-commits]

carlosgalvezp added a comment.

In D112730#3116281 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D112730#3116281>, @tstellar wrote:

> @carlosgalvezp The LLVM Foundation Board will conduct a legal reivew of this patch.  Would you be able to share any information you have about the license or usage restrictions for the AUTOSAR specification?

@tstellar Thanks for taking the time to review this, very much appreciated. Absolutely, here's what I know:

- The AUTOSAR C++14 guidelines can be obtained freely from here: https://www.autosar.org/fileadmin/user_upload/standards/adaptive/20-11/AUTOSAR_RS_CPP14Guidelines.pdf

  Note: this is a new version, compared to the one one could find via a Google search. It's still publicly available without any kind of paywall or registration needed. It can be searched here: https://www.autosar.org/nc/document-search/

- All pages of the pdf contain the header "AUTOSAR CONFIDENTIAL". I don't understand what that means legally, given that the document is public.

- The second page of the pdf contains a legal disclaimer, that claims the document shall be used "for information purposes only". For commercial usage, written permission from AUTOSAR must be obtained. I think it would be best if you look at the written statements directly, I might have missed important bits here.

- There exists a llvm-project fork that has implemented some of the checks: https://github.com/Bareflank/llvm-project/tree/bsl-tidy/clang-tools-extra/clang-tidy/bsl. They don't explicitly name Autosar anywhere in the code, but it's clear that they implement Autosar checks. In fact some commits refer to the rule number. The license of this fork is kept as the existing Apache 2.0 with LLVM Exceptions. I don't know if this was agreed with Autosar or simply the author didn't take enough consideration about the licensing aspects. I just want to mention that open-source Autosar checks already exist today under that license, whether it's a mistake or not.

- I have sent an email to AUTOSAR requesting their consent to implement open-source checks. Would you like me to CC you and other members of the Board into that mail? Who should I add?

- More restrictive guidelines, like MISRA, do allow open-source checkers, as long as only the rule number (not the rule text) is displayed.

I believe that's all I know, I hope it helps in reviewing this issue. Let me know if there are more questions or anything is unclear!


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D112730/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D112730