[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:17:48 +0100
From: u-uy74@...ey.se
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: musl licensing
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 07:06:25PM -0700, Christopher Lane wrote:
> ... if releasing under e.g. BSD0 is OK when PD isn't
> valid, why isn't it OK for all situations.
I expect that it is illegal in certain jurisdictions to claim
copyright on a public domain matter.
This is not a problem for the musl user (Google) but potentially endangers
the developer who wrote the questionable copyright statement.
This may explain why Google explicitly mentions "non-copyrightable" in a case
when it represents the developer party:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:31:25AM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> bionic actually generates its kernel interface headers from (gpl) code
> and each file has the comment:
>
> *** This header was automatically generated from a Linux kernel header
> *** of the same name, to make information necessary for userspace to
> *** call into the kernel available to libc. It contains only constants,
> *** structures, and macros generated from the original header, and thus,
> *** contains no copyrightable information.
So this is actually all about which party shall take the risks,
musl or Google. Isn't it?
Rune
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
