<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
Thanks, Richard.</div>
<div style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
I've opened an issue for the SPDX License List <a id="LPlnk715373" href="https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2785">
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/issues/2785</a> and if no one else reacts faster, I plan to submit a PR to implement this next week.</div>
<div class="elementToProof" id="Signature">
<div style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="elementToProof">
-- zvr --</div>
</div>
<div id="appendonsend"></div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, July 13, 2025 16:27<br>
<b>To:</b> Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@orcam.me.uk><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>; Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>; Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>; Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>; Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@linux.ibm.com>; Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>;
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>; Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>; Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; kvm@vger.kernel.org
<kvm@vger.kernel.org>; linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org <linux-spdx@vger.kernel.org>; J Lovejoy <opensource@jilayne.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc: Replace the obsolete address of the FSF</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">On Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 6:48 PM Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@orcam.me.uk> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2025, Richard Fontana wrote:<br>
><br>
> > > > while this one:<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > * As a special exception, if you link this library with files<br>
> > > > * compiled with GCC to produce an executable, this does not cause<br>
> > > > * the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public License.<br>
> > > > * This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why<br>
> > > > * the executable file might be covered by the GNU General Public License.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > does not seem to be in the SPDX exception list. It is very similar to<br>
> > > > `GNU-compiler-exception` except it specifically mentions GCC instead<br>
> > > > of saying "a GNU compiler".<br>
> > ><br>
> > > <a href="https://spdx.org/licenses/GNU-compiler-exception.html">https://spdx.org/licenses/GNU-compiler-exception.html</a><br>
> > ><br>
> > > is exactly this.<br>
> ><br>
> > No, because `GNU-compiler-exception` as defined here<br>
> > <a href="https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/main/src/exceptions/GNU-compiler-exception.xml">
https://github.com/spdx/license-list-XML/blob/main/src/exceptions/GNU-compiler-exception.xml</a><br>
> > assumes use of the term "GCC" rather than "a GNU compiler".<br>
><br>
> I don't know what the legal status of the statement referred is, however<br>
> the original exception as published[1] by FSF says:<br>
><br>
> '"GCC" means a version of the GNU Compiler Collection, with or without<br>
> modifications, governed by version 3 (or a specified later version) of the<br>
> GNU General Public License (GPL) with the option of using any subsequent<br>
> versions published by the FSF.'<br>
<br>
> which I think makes it clear that "GCC" is a collection of "GNU compilers"<br>
> and therefore the two terms are synonymous to each other for the purpose<br>
> of said exception (in the old days "GCC" stood for "GNU C Compiler", but<br>
> the old meaning makes no sense anymore now that we have compilers for Ada,<br>
> Fortran and many other languages included in GCC).<br>
><br>
> NB up to date versions of CRT code refer to the exception as published<br>
> rather than pasting an old version of its text:<br>
><br>
> 'Under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are granted additional<br>
> permissions described in the GCC Runtime Library Exception, version<br>
> 3.1, as published by the Free Software Foundation.'<br>
><br>
> References:<br>
><br>
> [1] "GCC Runtime Library Exception", version 3.1,<br>
> <<a href="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.html">https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-3.1.html</a>><br>
<br>
I think we're basically talking past each other. The definition of<br>
"GCC" in the GCC runtime library exception 3.1 is irrelevant because<br>
that file does not refer to that exception. In SPDX, license (and<br>
exception) identifiers are precisely defined. Unless I'm missing<br>
something there is no official SPDX identifier that corresponds to<br>
this text:<br>
<br>
As a special exception, if you link this library with files<br>
compiled with GCC to produce an executable, this does not cause<br>
the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public License.<br>
This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why<br>
the executable file might be covered by the GNU General Public License.<br>
<br>
I'm not personally a major supporter of SPDX and I'm the last person<br>
who would want to be associated with SPDX pedanticism but it's a<br>
standard and if the Linux kernel project is going to use it IMO it<br>
should conform to that standard, otherwise you're basically making ad<br>
hoc definitions of pseudo-SPDX expressions or redefinitions of<br>
already-defined SPDX identifiers, which seems to defeat the purpose of<br>
using SPDX expressions at all. Under that standard, there is currently<br>
no SPDX identifier representing the above text (as far as I can tell).<br>
The solution is either to propose a modification of<br>
`GNU-compiler-exception` so that "GCC" is accepted as an alternative<br>
to "a GNU compiler", or to propose a new exception to be added to<br>
SPDX's exception list, or to use a custom-defined `AdditionRef-`<br>
identifier.<br>
<br>
Richard<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
<span> </span><p style="margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Intel Deutschland GmbH<br>Registered Address: Am Campeon 10, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany<br>Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, <a href="http://www.intel.de/">www.intel.de</a><br>Managing Directors: Sean Fennelly, Jeffrey Schneiderman, Tiffany Doon Silva<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;" 1:p="">Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau<br>Registered Office: Munich<br>Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><div><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br></span></body>
</html>