Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:17:48 +0100
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?


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.