--- Comment #74 from Daniel Berrangé <berrange(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Yunying Sun from comment #73)
(In reply to Daniel Berrangé from comment #69)
> I looked for other examples of package reviews since this CC0 license
> change, and
> the recent additino os wasi-libc had to replace the dlmalloc impl with a
> different
> one under MIT license. They could have chosen to use an older versin of
> dlmalloc
> under the previous license, don't know why they chose a completely new malloc
> impl. So I think the precedent is that after 1 year since the announcement,
> adding new packages with CC0 content is no longer permitted.
Hi Daniel,
About the CC0 license issue, linux-sgx team tended not to downgrade dlmalloc
to the CC-PDDC licensed v2.8.4 for security concerns.
That leaves two options as we can see:
Option 1: We relicense sdk/tlibc/stdlib/malloc.c to BSD by adding a
secondary header like what openjdk does:
https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/java.base/share/classes/java/
util/concurrent/AbstractExecutorService.java
This is the way the author of dlmalloc recommended. Will this work for
Fedora?
Option 2: We add note to explain that the original dlmalloc is under CC0,
and linux-sgx changes to it is under BSD. Like what wasi-libc has in its
License:
https://github.com/WebAssembly/wasi-libc/blob/main/LICENSE
Despite wasi-libc seems still using dlmalloc as its default:
https://github.com/WebAssembly/wasi-libc/blob/main/Makefile#L19
In its package spec, CC0 does not need to be listed anymore in License
field:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wasi-libc/blob/rawhide/f/wasi-libc.
spec#_9.
Which option do you suggest we take? Or any other alternatives?
I don't have sufficient confidence in either of these options of changing
the license myself, so I've requested Fedora Legal to give an opinion:
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.