[#2005] Fix Formatting When Brittany Returns Warnings

[prikhi]

This is the same function I have written for my brittany PR(lspitzner/brittany#351) but there hasn't been any movement on that yet.

It'd be great if we could have this temporary fix merged until something similar is supported by upstream brittany.

[jneira]

Thanks for fixing this here too. We have to remember remove it when brittan includes it.
@Ailrun @pepeiborra and others are you fine with include this here?

[pepeiborra]

No objections from me as long as licensing issues are taken into consideration, given that Brittany is LGPL and the plugin is Apache 2.0

[prikhi]

We have to remember remove it when brittany includes it.

I'm fine w/ being the one responsible for removing any relevant changes if/once my brittany PR gets merged + released.

Brittany is LGPL and the plugin is Apache 2.0

Sorry, hadn't considered this aspect of it. Don't have much knowledge of these two licenses, but it seems like the only way to bring this change into HLS before brittany merges it would be for us to use my brittany fork instead of pulling the code directly into this repo?

I could attempt to write a new function that's not just a re-write of parsePrintModule w/ different return types. Have I spent too much time looking at the brittany implementations that anything I write could be considered a "derivative work"? 🤷 I don't have enough exposure to these sort of licensing issues to know what to do in this situation...

[pepeiborra]

We have to remember remove it when brittany includes it.

I'm fine w/ being the one responsible for removing any relevant changes if/once my brittany PR gets merged + released.

Brittany is LGPL and the plugin is Apache 2.0

Sorry, hadn't considered this aspect of it. Don't have much knowledge of these two licenses, but it seems like the only way to bring this change into HLS before brittany merges it would be for us to use my brittany fork instead of pulling the code directly into this repo?

I could attempt to write a new function that's not just a re-write of parsePrintModule w/ different return types. Have I spent too much time looking at the brittany implementations that anything I write could be considered a "derivative work"? 🤷 I don't have enough exposure to these sort of licensing issues to know what to do in this situation...

In my previous comment I mistakenly said brittany is LGPL, when I actually meant AGPL. This is what the AGPL license says about modified source code:

5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.

You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to
produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the
terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified
it, and giving a relevant date.

b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is
released under this License and any conditions added under section
7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to
"keep intact all notices".

c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this
License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This
License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7
additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts,
regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no
permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not
invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.

While you could plausibly write a new version of the function from scratch, I would not encourage this.

So in order to go ahead with this PR, you would need to change the plugin license to be AGPL. This is fine by me since I have stopped using Brittany in all my projects due to the odd choice of license, but you would also need to obtain permission from all other contributors to this plugin (@Ailrun @berberman @jneira @wz1000 and any others who have made any changes).

[jneira]

Well include Brittany itself introduces LGPL in hls so I dont see any problem in change the plugin license as well.
So if nobody disagree I would let the pr change it

[prikhi]

I rebased & switched the cabal license field & LICENSE file to AGPL-3.0-only. brittany uses an invalid SPDX identifier AGPL-3, which I assumed meant v3.0 only - but could switch to AGPL-3.0-or-later if deemed acceptable.

[prikhi]

Also, is it possible to switch back to Apache once the upstream PR has been merged and we can remove this function? I left a comment in the cabal file suggesting so, but can remove it if it's not accurate.

[jneira]

Also, is it possible to switch back to Apache once the upstream PR has been merged and we can remove this function? I left a comment in the cabal file suggesting so, but can remove it if it's not accurate.

i think it s not necessary, we cant include the plugin without brittany itself so if we have to exclude gpl software, we have to exclude both at same time. In fact i think is better to keep in sync both licenses to make it clear.

So i will merge this if no contributor manifest their opposition

[prikhi]

i think it s not necessary

👍, removed the comment.

[jneira]

reruning tests, it failed with a transient error (i hope)

[jneira]

LGTM, thanks for fixing here the bug, please, remember to remove it once it is upstreamed