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.