This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC] Add missing copyrights
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob 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 18:23:29 -0400
- 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> <20130611213518 dot 5D9C82C09F at topped-with-meat dot com>
On 06/11/2013 05:35 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
>> 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.
Do we expect many more of these files to be present in glibc?
If we do not, then we've just identified the outliers, and we can
go back to telling everyone that everything should have a boiler
plate license header.
I'm not being flippant here, I'm just trying to make the message
as simple as possible to follow when it comes to copyright and
license issues.
>> 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.
That would have been a real inconvenience for downstream, but is such
a scenario a real problem for the project? It seems like a fail safe
scenario under which our licensing is too restrictive and requires us
to back off from a position of safety?
Cheers,
Carlos.