ANN: GNAT GPL 2015 Atmel SAM4S Ravenscar patches

ANN: GNAT GPL 2015 Atmel SAM4S Ravenscar patches

[Patrick Noffke]

A makefile and patches be found here:
https://github.com/patricknoffke/ada-mcu

I have added runtime support for various peripherals, with BSD 3-Clause license.

Feedback welcome.

Regards,
Patrick

Re: ANN: GNAT GPL 2015 Atmel SAM4S Ravenscar patches

[Simon Wright]

Patrick Noffke <patrick.noffke@gmail.com> writes:

> A makefile and patches be found here:
> https://github.com/patricknoffke/ada-mcu
>
> I have added runtime support for various peripherals, with BSD
> 3-Clause license.

It appears that you have (maybe not completely consistently) altered
AdaCore's copyright notices, added in an FSF copyright notice, and added
back the GCC Runtime Library Exception. I don't think you're entitled to
do those things.

Re: ANN: GNAT GPL 2015 Atmel SAM4S Ravenscar patches

[Tero Koskinen]

29.7.2015, 9:57, Simon Wright kirjoitti:
> Patrick Noffke <patrick.noffke@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> A makefile and patches be found here:
>> https://github.com/patricknoffke/ada-mcu
>>
>> I have added runtime support for various peripherals, with BSD
>> 3-Clause license.
>
> It appears that you have (maybe not completely consistently) altered
> AdaCore's copyright notices, added in an FSF copyright notice, and added
> back the GCC Runtime Library Exception. I don't think you're entitled to
> do those things.

Do you mean sections like this:
https://github.com/patricknoffke/ada-mcu/blob/master/bb-runtimes-gpl-2015.patch#L4164 
?

I think Patrick's patch is done correctly. He has basically rewritten 
the files, only the filenames (and some function names) are same, which 
is why the diff shows stuff that way.

However, issues/questions like this ("did you really modify GPL 
code/remove the copyright headers?") show that it is a bad idea to base 
any of the work on GNAT GPL. Also, new work should use separate files,
not just a huge patch which replaces the old files.

So, Patrick should probably rebase his work on top of FSF GNAT and 
include Atmel SAM4S specific code in a dedicated source directory.

Here are my examples for STM32F4:
https://bitbucket.org/tkoskine/gnat-arm-app-skeleton/src/ab141a07860925a7c19d333c30b6084a041d9325?at=default
https://bitbucket.org/tkoskine/embedded-arm-gnat-rts/src/128d104166de?at=default
https://bitbucket.org/tkoskine/embedded-arm-gnat-build/src

GNAT build script (and possible patches) is in one repository 
(embedded-arm-gnat-build). GNAT Ada runtime is in another repository 
(embedded-arm-gnat-rts), and STM32F4 peripheral code is in the third 
repository (gnat-arm-app-skeleton).

You could probably use same repository for all pieces, but you need to 
put them in separate directories at least.

Yours,
  Tero

Re: ANN: GNAT GPL 2015 Atmel SAM4S Ravenscar patches

[Simon Wright]

Tero Koskinen <tero.koskinen@iki.fi> writes:

> Do you mean sections like this:
> https://github.com/patricknoffke/ada-mcu/blob/master/bb-runtimes-gpl-2015.patch#L4164

Without looking at your section too hard (but I do agree, mainly), what
about
https://github.com/patricknoffke/ada-mcu/blob/master/gnat-gpl-2015-src.patch#l273

I took care only to import code from FSF GCC; I suspect the "bb" design
is intended to support many MCUs with pure Ada, but as an unfunded
person I found it fairly straightforward to work with FreeRTOS.

For what it's worth, the Arduino Due port of my work has only 4 Ada
source files different from the corresponding STM32F429I (all to do with
interrupts) and 3 to initialize the MCU and set up the clock (aside from
the clock, the MCU is largely self-initializing, which helps).

Re: ANN: GNAT GPL 2015 Atmel SAM4S Ravenscar patches

[Patrick Noffke]

On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 1:56:08 AM UTC-5, Simon Wright wrote:
> Patrick Noffke writes:
> 
> > A makefile and patches be found here:
> > https://github.com/patricknoffke/ada-mcu
> >
> > I have added runtime support for various peripherals, with BSD
> > 3-Clause license.
> 
> It appears that you have (maybe not completely consistently) altered
> AdaCore's copyright notices, added in an FSF copyright notice, and added
> back the GCC Runtime Library Exception. I don't think you're entitled to
> do those things.

Well, technically I'm not conveying any covered works (it's a patch), so I can do anything I want to existing files.  But there is one file that I altered and meant to put back.  I'll do that.

Patrick