This is annoying because it's one of several things that stops Fedora/RISC-V from going into Fedora proper, but I'm sure it'll be sorted out.<p>Edit: To save anyone asking, here are the other things we're waiting on:<p>* Upstreaming of glibc, kernel and binutils changes.<p>* Availability of rackable server hardware - required so we can deploy builders in the Fedora datacenter. This is obviously the biggest blocker, and likely several years away. In the interim I'm running my own build server which is currently doing a mass rebuild, but once that is finished will pick packages from the Fedora primary architecture builders and rebuild them for riscv64 (<a href="https://fedorapeople.org/groups/risc-v/" rel="nofollow">https://fedorapeople.org/groups/risc-v/</a>)<p>* Upstreaming of qemu changes (happening at the moment). Not a requirement, but nice to have.
I discussed this issue with a GCC developer at the LLVM Cauldron in Hebden Bridge a few weeks ago. He pointed out that although it's understandable the UC Berkeley regents balk at the idea of exclusive copyright assignment, the terms of the assignment do allow you to receive non-exclusive rights back with a 90 day notice period. Why it's structured in that way I'm not sure. I would hope there's a legal reason relating to the FSF's ability to fight copyright infringement, rather than a simple desire to discourage dual licensing.
I went to Berkeley and I still drop by to sit in on lectures.<p>The IP department has always been terrible to deal with. They really are the opposite of Stanford with regards to IP. A pain to deal with, everything up front. Very hostile to startups. This probably puts SiFive in limbo.<p>They (the IP dept) lost a first rate EE prof (Howe) over nonsense like this. Their glory days of the BSD lawsuit are long over.
Isn't that code derived from GPLed code? In that case it must have a GPL license, so what are the lawyers really hung up on with copyright assignment? It's not like they can change the license due to owning the copyright, and they can't prevent anyone else using the code they've already released under that license. I guess I can see the frustration - at this point the actual ownership is kind of a minor point.