[Beowulf] SPEC CPU 2006 released

Ed Hill ed at eh3.com
Sun Sep 3 08:55:52 PDT 2006

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 16:08:05 +0200
Toon Moene <toon at moene.indiv.nluug.nl> wrote:

> Robert G. Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Geoff Jacobs wrote:
> > 
> >> I should have been more specific and said that I do not believe
> >> any integrated benchmarks packaged and shipped by SPEC are in
> >> any WSOF Open Source or Free Software. Apparently some software
> >> included in SPECCpu 2006 is in fact licensed under the GPL,
> >> including sjeng. Possibly some other Free Software and OSS
> >> licenses are represented as well.
> >>
> >> To use the benchmark itself requires a license from SPEC.
> > 
> > Hmmm, GPL viral?
> > 
> > This raises a really "interesting" question about the depth at
> > which open source GPL code is embedded in a tool when the viral
> > clause kicks in.
> You can't be serious here, Dr. Red-Green-Blue.
> Gcc has been part of SPEC since, what, '95 ?
> You can compile and run GPL'd code all you want - no restriction
> there. It's only when you want to distribute changed code you have
> have to supply source.

Yes.  Its 2006.  I think we've all had ample time to read and
(mostly?) digest the popular licenses.  :-)

RGB's insinuations about viral nature are easily addressed.  If:

  1) SPEC provides full source code for all the GPL-ed bits
     to all the folks who purchase the SPEC suite, and
  2) none of the non-GPL-ed SPEC stuff links against the 
     included GPL-ed bits

then, in all likelihood, there are no violations.  So, no big deal or
"interesting" questions here.  And if someone wanted to extract the
GPL-ed bits from the SPEC suite and re-distribute them (per the GPL)
then they'd have the ability and every right to do so.


ps - What's the opposite of "spreading FUD"?  Would it be 
     "Cool, Objective, and Rational Discourse"?  Could we 
     call it CORD?  :-)

Edward H. Hill III, PhD  |  ed at eh3.com  |  http://eh3.com/

More information about the Beowulf mailing list