[klee-dev] The license of runtime/klee-libc

[Cristian Cadar]

Thanks for the detailed info, Jonathan.

I agree that we could replace klee-libc with other code, but first of 
all, I am wondering whether we still need it in the first place.  My 
impression is that everyone uses klee either standalone or with uclibc, 
but please let me know if there are any users who need the "--libc=klee" 
option.

Unless I hear otherwise, my suggestion would be to remove that directory 
from the mainline, and perhaps just offer it as a separate external 
library, as we do with uclibc.

Best,
Cristian

On 26/06/13 00:56, Jonathan Neuschäfer wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 04:01:40PM -0700, Daniel Dunbar wrote:
>> Hi Jonathan,
>>
>> Where did you derive the author information from?
>>
>> If you can verify that the implementations we have are from a particular
>> source then we should probably import their license. If we can't verify the
>> right source license, then my recommendation would be to try and find BSD
>> licensed ones we could import (and include license, if need be).
>
> I took the authorship information from the license comments in these
> files. They are all under the 4-clause BSD license, which is quite
> problematic for its advertising clause:
>
>   "3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
>       software must display the following acknowledgement: This product
>       includes software developed by the University of California,
>       Berkeley and its contributors."
>
> The NetBSD libc seems to suite our purpose, it's 2- or 3-clause BSD
> licensed: ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-current/src/lib/libc/
> I haven't reviewed the code in question yet, though.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Jonathan
>
> _______________________________________________
> klee-dev mailing list
> klee-dev at imperial.ac.uk
> https://mailman.ic.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/klee-dev
>