On Friday 2008-07-25 06:01, Andrew Schulman wrote: > >But there's a problem: there's no overall license file, and a lot of >the source files don't have license statements in them. Here are the >source files I find with no license: > >extensions/libxt_condition.c (Stephane and Massimiliano) >extensions/libxt_ECHO.c (me) >extensions/libxt_ipp2p.c (ipp2p project group, code audited by me) >extensions/libxt_LOGMARK.c (me) >extensions/libxt_TARPIT.c (trivial) >extensions/libxt_TEE.c (Sebastian and audited by me) >The remaining source files are all GPL. > >Can the above files be released under GPL too? Most of them don't have >copyright statements in them. Do you/we know who their authors are? The iptables extensions are mostly trivial and I would not consider them meaningfully copyrightable (especially libxt_TARPIT.c). I relaxedly put in GPL because anything else does not make sense. (e.g. there is no BSD implementation of the iptables command line interface which could possibly use these modules) If any of the Cc'ed co-authors disagree with picking GPL2+, now is your time to speak up. >I know very little about licenses. What about all of the other files >in the archive? Do they need to be licensed too, and would a general >COPYING file such as one usually sees cover them all? I'll fix that. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
