Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:34:14 +0100 From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: musl licensing * FRIGN <dev@...gn.de> [2016-03-16 11:55:27 +0100]: > On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 11:31:25 +0100 > Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> wrote: > > there should be a way to document copyright without changing > > source files. if google has some best practice for that we > > can follow it i think. (one line comment is ok, but i'd prefer > > no license related text in source files.) > > One line never hurts. It would also be convenient for new contributors, it trains programmers to ignore source comments because they contain redundant legal gibberish instead of technically relevant content. you don't put "use the makefile to build this" in every source file either, but describe the build process at a central location. i kept the copyright notices of src/math/* files because there are too many variations to describe them all in a separate file, but i have to note that they do not represent the real authors and year of authorship.. which is the usual case for copyright notices.. (some try to clarify the situation by assigning all the copyright to one entity, but that makes it worse: that's clearly not about the rights of an author, but pure coercive monopoly over ideas.) > > bionic actually generates its kernel interface headers from (gpl) code > > and each file has the comment: > > (...) > > so it is ok to claim 'not copyrightable', we just have to find a way > > to do this without cluttering each header file. > > I don't think we can apply this argument here. why? > Also, there's no reason not to just use ISC or BSD-0. there are things that should not be the intellectual property of any person and you should not claim ownership of those things.
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.