Page MenuHomePhabricator

libclc: Remove code that is not licensed under either the UIUC or MIT license
AcceptedPublic

Authored by tstellarAMD on Sep 26 2016, 10:17 AM.

Details

Reviewers
awatry
Summary

This is to comply with LLVM policies.

Diff Detail

Event Timeline

tstellarAMD retitled this revision from to libclc: Remove code that is not licensed under either the UIUC or MIT license.
tstellarAMD updated this object.
tstellarAMD added reviewers: lattner, awatry.
lattner resigned from this revision.Sep 26 2016, 2:43 PM
lattner removed a reviewer: lattner.

I can't provide a technical review for this, but thank you for working on it!

awatry edited edge metadata.Sep 26 2016, 7:17 PM

What's here looks fine to me.

Question: Do we want to delete the headers in generic/include/clc/math/erf* and remove them from clc.h as well? Or should we just leave them in for now?

Given that erf and erfc are part of CL 1.0, this is going to regress functionality anyway... The question is whether one failure mode is better than another in this case (failure to compile kernel versus failure to link).

Note that newly added lgamma functions also include Sun copyrighted code.

Remove lgamma functions too.

awatry accepted this revision.Feb 1 2017, 2:45 PM

This looks fine to me.

Sad to see it go, but we don't have much choice for now.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Feb 1 2017, 2:45 PM

Also remove tgamma which calls lgamma.

Why is this necessary? is the explicit mention of "merge ... sublicense and/or sell" the dealbraker?

Why is this necessary? is the explicit mention of "merge ... sublicense and/or sell" the dealbraker?

The license is not an approved license for LLVM projects. If we want to add it back, we need to ask for an exception for this license from the LLVM foundation.

Why is this necessary? is the explicit mention of "merge ... sublicense and/or sell" the dealbraker?

The license is not an approved license for LLVM projects. If we want to add it back, we need to ask for an exception for this license from the LLVM foundation.

Is there a description how to do that? has the process been started?
Is there an alternative implementation with compatible license?

Why is this necessary? is the explicit mention of "merge ... sublicense and/or sell" the dealbraker?

The license is not an approved license for LLVM projects. If we want to add it back, we need to ask for an exception for this license from the LLVM foundation.

Is there a description how to do that? has the process been started?
Is there an alternative implementation with compatible license?

I would recommend asking the Board. Contact info is here: http://llvm.org/foundation/index.html