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

[Jonathan Neuschäfer]

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 03:44:09PM +0100, Cristian Cadar wrote:
> 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.

Good point; I can say almost nothing about KLEE's user base.

> 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.

Preferably with a SVN (or Git) repo, but that's just a humble wish of
mine. :-)


	Jonathan

> 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