linux-kernel - Licensing & copyright of kernel .config files (defconfig, *config)

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <robbat2-20140601T012929-356267352Z@orbis-terrarum.net>
Date:	Sun, 1 Jun 2014 01:43:01 +0000
From:	"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@...too.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Licensing & copyright of kernel .config files (defconfig, *config)

(Please CC me on replies, not subscribed to LKML)

Hi,

Somewhat of an odd question, but none of the files in question seem to
have a copyright header on them...

For a kernel .config file, either from one of the defconfig or any other
*config option that automates the answer:
1. What license does the file fall under?
2. Who are the copyright holders?

Naively, since the defconfigs are bundled with the kernel, that could
fall under GPLv2-only implicitly, but lacking any explicit copyright
headers makes this interesting (arch/*/configs/* contain lots of files,
no copyright headers on them).

If I manually write the names of some configuration options to a new
.config file, at that point I logically am the only author and have
copyright of it. My editor slaps a default license on it of BSD-2.
Thereafter I run olddefconfig, and now it's a combined work of the
kernel's defconfig and my manual settings. If GPL-2 was inherited from
the kernel tree, this is now a combined BSD-GPL2 work, or is it? The
kernel config tools did consider my file as input, possibly overrode the
settings if they didn't work with others, and re-output everything.

If the files are to be marked with a copyright header, who is the holder
of it that it should be attributed to?

Alternatively, is this a case where the work is not copyrightable, and
the files should have a notice to that effect?

Background:
Gentoo has a bunch of "stock" kernel configurations for release
engineering, our initramfs tool (genkernel), and other endeavors over
the years. These projects claim BSD, GPL2, LGPL2 on various pieces, and
I don't think they can all be correct. I'm working on getting them into
one place, because some of them have been getting stale, but the
differing licenses raised a red flag to me.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail     : robbat2@...too.org
GnuPG FP   : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
--
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/