Re: The GPL: No shelter for the Linux kernel?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



>> Would every file that does not contain an explicit license (this 
>> excludes MODULE_LICENSE) falls under COPYING?
>
>[...]
>If a file doesn't have a license mentioned, it doesn't mean that it's 
>"free for all" or not copyrighted, it just means that you need to find out 
>what the license is some other way (and if you can't find out, you 
>shouldn't be copying that file ;)
>
>Of course, for clarity, a lot of projects end up adding at least a minimal 
>copyright header license everywhere, just to cover their *sses. It's not 
>required, but maybe it avoids some confusion, especially if that file is 
>later copied into some other project with other basic rules (but if you 
>do that, you really _should_ have added the information at that point!).
>[...]

Though I strongly agree with you, some GNU folks (such as 
savannah.nongnu.org) seem to explicitly require it, even for files 
that do not make up a single program (i.e. like coreutils/ls.c).



Jan Engelhardt
-- 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]