On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:34:00PM +0200, Liran Alon wrote: > > On 10/03/2020 23:16, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 04:46:19PM +0200, Liran Alon wrote: > > > There is no license issue here. It's only definitions. > > So it seems that in your opinion > > - definition names in the interface do not need a license > > and > > - it is fair to reuse them without a license for the purpose > > of making your compatible interface easier to use for > > people familiar with the original > > > > Did I get that right? > I'm for sure not an expert on open source code licenses. You probably know > this area much more than I do. > But yes, this is what I would have thought. That it's not an issue to copy > the enum definition.
I'm not a lawyer. I think attribution is important even for small things, and it was missing in v1. v2 has it but link would be better. I also think respecting author's wishes is important, and a license gives a hint as to that. -- MST