On 5/24/19 9:07 PM, Richard Fontana wrote: > > Not to sidetrack discussion but I don't see how they're a barrier to > *true* compliance specifically for Linux. If you have the complete > corresponding source code for the Linux kernel, and you just assume > (as some of us do) it's licensed under GPLv2 and provide the source > code and chances are you'll be in compliance. And most noncompliant > Linux distributors are noncompliant because they aren't distributing > the source code (and thus they have nothing to run scanning tools on > or whatever). > > Nevertheless I see a more general (beyond the Linux kernel) benefit to > adoption of legal notices in source code that can more easily be > understood by tools, and GPL-licensed projects in particular pose a > challenge to changing practices around source code license notices. > Which is partly why I am interested in and helping out a bit with this > work. Sure, by "barrier" I didn't mean "impossible", just that it's more difficult to comply if you aren't sure what licenses apply, and your scanning tools are giving you garbled results. > Sounds like a good suggestion. Perhaps alternatively or in addition, a > good faith effort can be undertaken to attempt to get licensor (more > specifically, nominal-copyright-holder) consent for these changes. It > doesn't have to be perfect or rushed. Was this idea considered but > abandoned? Not long ago Thomas asked me about a number of source files > with Red Hat copyrights, such as the ones that said "GPL'd" which > seemed particularly to irk him :) It seems like at this point you are > all giving up on the idea of checking with nominal copyright holders > ... out of frustration or impatience I guess? I've seen enough projects waste years of human-hours on this, that it seems reasonable to me to limit this activity to the really questionable notices. Allison
