| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:59:47 +0200 (MEST) From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org> cc: Petr Baudis <pasky@...e.cz>, David Schwartz <davids@...master.com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, git@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: The GPL: No shelter for the Linux kernel? >> 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 linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists