This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC] Add missing copyrights
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:26:31 -0400
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Add missing copyrights
- References: <20130611133800 dot GA4128 at domone dot kolej dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1306111928100 dot 897 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20130611200107 dot 34B552C058 at topped-with-meat dot com> <51B78716 dot 9090701 at redhat dot com> <20130611210407 dot 25B9F2C09D at topped-with-meat dot com>
On 06/11/2013 05:04 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
>> Would you not agree that when it comes to issues of copyright
>> and licensing that the rules we apply should have as few
>> exceptions as possible? Therefore "Add copyright headers to everything"
>> just seems like a win with no lose? What did I miss?
>
> Fair enough. But when we get to other exceptions, like things that need
> special variants of the license text, then the notion that you are keeping
> things simple and uniform breaks down.
Sure, everything breaks down in real life, but the intent can be clear.
Do we have a file that contains no license but needs a license that
is not the boiler plate for the project?
Such a file would raise the question: What's better, no license or the
boiler plate?
Cheers,
Carlos.