<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/27/25 02:54, Jing Luo wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ebca71a0c28ba279393c2fad4e7a6adc@jing.rocks">On
2025-04-24 11:07, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 4/23/25 01:17, Jing Luo wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">[...]
<br>
<br>
(a rough translation from Chinese)
<br>
[Q3] Is the source code of Spacemit's gcc available
<br>
[A3] No. But [we] didn't make a lot of changes on gcc,
basically it's [the same as] the open source (sic.) version.
After all, the only thing added was assembler support, i.e.
changing binutils. The patches supporting the instruction will
be ready to be released, so that everyone who build their own
toolchain can also patch [it] themselves.
<br>
<br>
Oh well.
<br>
<br>
[7] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://forum.spacemit.com/t/topic/387">https://forum.spacemit.com/t/topic/387</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
That "No." is a GPL violation right there, as I understand it.
Can the Chinese original be read as "GCC is unmodified from the
GNU version" or are they attempting to minimize the fact that
they distribute a modified *compiler*?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The latter one I think. "didn't make a lot of changes" = "made
some changes".<br>
</blockquote>
<p>Right...<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ebca71a0c28ba279393c2fad4e7a6adc@jing.rocks">
<blockquote type="cite">GNU binutils is another package, but could
be conflated as part of GCC because GCC uses binutils to
generate binary output, and binary distributions of GCC
therefore normally include binutils.
<br>
<br>
This leads to a possible scenario: they are distributing a
build of unmodified GCC with their patched binutils bundled. Is
the promised binutils patch available?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, there is simply no source tarballs or patches for the binaries
(gcc+binutils) they distribute.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>So then we run down the details according to
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc1738" href="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html"><URL:https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html></a>:</p>
<ul>
<li>the precise name of the product</li>
<li>the name of the person or organization distributing it</li>
<li>email addresses, postal addresses and phone numbers for how to
contact the distributor(s)</li>
<li>the exact name of the package whose license is violated</li>
<li>how the license was violated</li>
</ul>
<p>You have the first two of those; I believe Martin Guy found at
least some email addresses; our discussion seems to indicate that
we are looking at GPL violations on both GCC and GNU binutils; and
of course, the sources are completely missing.</p>
<p>The FSF collects reports at: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:license-violation@gnu.org">license-violation@gnu.org</a></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>-- Jacob<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>