This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC] Add missing copyrights
- From: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Add missing copyrights
- References: <20130611133800 dot GA4128 at domone dot kolej dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1306111928100 dot 897 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20130611200107 dot 34B552C058 at topped-with-meat dot com> <51B78716 dot 9090701 at redhat dot com> <20130611210407 dot 25B9F2C09D at topped-with-meat dot com> <51B79607 dot 4050002 at redhat dot com>
> Do we have a file that contains no license but needs a license that
> is not the boiler plate for the project?
If a file that's empty except for comments needs any license at all,
then sysdeps/init_array/crt[in].S are such files.
> Such a file would raise the question: What's better, no license or the
> boiler plate?
I'd say no license is better. Otherwise someone trying to respect the
license in good faith would feel obliged to distribute relinkable object
files for their program just so it can be relinked against LGPL-licensed
empty files.