This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFC] Add missing copyrights


On 06/11/2013 06:45 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> You mean, new ones to be added?  There will be a new start.[cS] (crt1.o)
> for every new port.  For any new ports that don't use sysdeps/init_array,
> there will be new crt[in].S files.  There may well be new libc_nonshared
> cases in the future.
> 
>> 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?
> 
> As long as the ownership is clearly FSF, then there is never a "real
> problem for the project".  We can always change the terms in future
> versions, whether to be more permissive or to be more restrictive.
> But if we start out with restrictive conditions on files that get
> linked into user binaries, it is a problem for our users.

Thanks for talking this out. I'm sufficiently convinced that you're
probably right, but I'm still worried about missing license headers.

The only solution appears to be good old fashioned human review.

Cheers,
Carlos.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]