blueszhangsh / gperftools

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/gperftools
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
0 stars 0 forks source link

Dead GPLv2 code present: src/tests/ptmalloc/thread-m.h #169

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. less google-perftools-1.4/src/tests/ptmalloc/thread-m.h

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?

Expected: BSD style license header
Instead: GPLv2+ license header

It seems this header file is not actually used anywhere.  It is referenced
only in the top-level Makefile.am, as an include source for two ptmalloc
unit test programs.  However, those programs don't actually include the
file, so it's just dead code with a non-BSD license.

$ find google-perftools-1.4 -type f | xargs grep 'thread-m\.h'
google-perftools-1.4/src/tests/ptmalloc/thread-m.h:/* $Id: thread-m.h,v
1.1.1.4 1999/11/13 15:44:12 wg Exp $
google-perftools-1.4/Makefile.am:                            
src/tests/ptmalloc/thread-m.h \
google-perftools-1.4/Makefile.in:                            
src/tests/ptmalloc/thread-m.h \

Original issue reported on code.google.com by lars.he...@gmail.com on 18 Sep 2009 at 11:30

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
As the makefile says, it's included only to ease comparisons between tcmalloc 
and
ptmalloc.

I guess my questions is: what's the bug?  Do you think it's a licensing problem 
to be
including the gpl code in the distribution?  If so, I can ask our licensing 
experts
here about it.

Original comment by csilv...@gmail.com on 18 Sep 2009 at 3:16

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Thanks for the inspiration to look at this part of the codebase again.  Given 
that
it's been like this for quite a while now, and I don't have any indication 
anyone is
actually trying to compile this stuff for testing, I'll just take it out for 
the next
release.

Original comment by csilv...@gmail.com on 21 Sep 2009 at 1:38

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Thanks.  Yes, this was a licensing question.

Original comment by lars.he...@gmail.com on 21 Sep 2009 at 8:43

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
This is removed in perftools 1.5, just released.

Original comment by csilv...@gmail.com on 20 Jan 2010 at 11:12