[Openmp-commits] [PATCH] D13072: [OpenMP] Enable ThreadSanitizer to check OpenMP programs

[Hal Finkel via Openmp-commits]

----- Original Message -----

> From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org>
> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
> Cc: "Simone Atzeni" <simone at cs.utah.edu>, "Andrey Churbanov"
> <andrey.churbanov at intel.com>, "James H Cownie"
> <james.h.cownie at intel.com>, "Jonathan L Peyton"
> <jonathan.l.peyton at intel.com>, "protze joachim"
> <protze.joachim at gmail.com>, Hahnfeld at itc.rwth-aachen.de,
> openmp-commits at lists.llvm.org, "Chandler Carruth"
> <chandlerc at gmail.com>,
> reviews+D13072+public+f7da66e91204bdbf at reviews.llvm.org
> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 10:25:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] D13072: [OpenMP] Enable ThreadSanitizer to check
> OpenMP programs

> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Hal Finkel < hfinkel at anl.gov >
> wrote:

> > > From: "Daniel Berlin" < dberlin at dberlin.org >
> > 
> 
> > > To: reviews+D13072+public+f7da66e91204bdbf at reviews.llvm.org
> > 
> 
> > > Cc: "Simone Atzeni" < simone at cs.utah.edu >, "Hal Finkel" <
> > > hfinkel at anl.gov >, "Andrey Churbanov" <
> > > andrey.churbanov at intel.com
> > > >, "James H Cownie" < james.h.cownie at intel.com >, "Jonathan L
> > > Peyton" < jonathan.l.peyton at intel.com >, "protze joachim" <
> > > protze.joachim at gmail.com >, Hahnfeld at itc.rwth-aachen.de ,
> > > openmp-commits at lists.llvm.org , "Chandler Carruth" <
> > > chandlerc at gmail.com >
> > 
> 
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 9:38:53 AM
> > 
> 
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] D13072: [OpenMP] Enable ThreadSanitizer to
> > > check
> > > OpenMP programs
> > 
> 

> > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Hal Finkel < hfinkel at anl.gov >
> > > wrote:
> > 
> 

> > > > hfinkel added a comment.
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D13072#256043 , @dberlin wrote:
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D13072#252598 , @jcownie wrote:
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > >
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > It generally looks fine to me.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > >
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > 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 (
> > > > > > http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/openmp/trunk/LICENSE.txt
> > > > > > ).
> > > > > > (Of
> > > > > > course, IANAL).
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > >
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > >
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > Urf. Speaking as a lawyer, in practice, this doesn't matter.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > >
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > However, we should fix all of these, not just the Google one.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > >
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > 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).
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > >
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > I'll start a thread about this.
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > > @dberlin , how do we move forward here? Having the OpenMP
> > > > runtime
> > > > library work well with TSan is important.
> > > 
> > 
> 

> > > These licenses really need to be changed out for the llvm license
> > > (or
> > > the proposed license + exception).
> > 
> 

> > > 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.
> > 
> 

> > > 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".
> > 
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Yes.
> It's effectively non-sensical from a legal-standpoint :)

> > > So my strong suggestion is that we just fix this.
> > 
> 

> > > 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.
> > 
> 
> > I assume that all of this will need to be cleared up if we switch
> > licenses, but...
> 

> > 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.
> 

> I can authorize a change the license to the llvm license, or whatever
> we want, the problem is that this is now *yet another* license to
> list in that file.

> If we want to do that with the intention of cleaning them *all* up,
> "consider it done". Whoever wants to may change the license header
> to the standard LLVM license.

Thanks! I'm considering it done. 

-Hal 

-- 

Hal Finkel 
Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages 
Leadership Computing Facility 
Argonne National Laboratory 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/openmp-commits/attachments/20161013/1a6588e6/attachment.html>