On 2015-06-18 09:25, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 2015-06-18 09:05, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>> >>> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> On 2015-06-17 23:35, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote: >>>>> El Dimecres, 17 de juny de 2015, a les 19:25:56, Gilles Chanteperdrix >>>>> va >>>>> escriure: >>>>>> Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> using a debian tool to check the license of the package I have found >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> his >>>>>> >>>>>>> files: >>>>>> This mail looks very different from the one you sent me privately and >>>>>> I >>>>>> told you to post on the list. It does not even concern the same >>>>>> version >>>>>> of >>>>>> Xenomai. >>>>> >>>>> yes, >>>>> >>>>> it's true. But what I understood from you was that it was better that >>>>> I >>>>> sent >>>>> to the list. That file comes from xenomai-2.6.4. Any problem then? >>>>> >>>>> I just need to clarify this kind of things because ftp-masters are >>>>> every >>>>> day >>>>> more strict (what I think it's better), especially with licenses. >>>>> Never >>>>> happens nothing till the day that something happen. >>>> >>>> Out of curiosity: How do these license check work right now? What's the >>>> tool used and how are the outputs processed (manual or automatic >>>> decisions etc.)? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> If can check this kind of stuff it would be better, that's all. For >>>>> instance, I >>>>> was a bit surprised about the autotools generated files, because I >>>>> thought they >>>>> would never had license. >>>> >>>> If something has no license, it cannot be used. >>> >>> That is an over-simplification. Or maybe a policy of the company you >>> work >>> at. But that is not a general truth that applies to everyone. >> >> Of course, it's a simplification (you may still use it secretly under >> your blanket), but your lawyer will tell you something like this if you >> ask. At least when referring to common copyright laws on this planet. So >> this is not a company policy thing but a jurisdiction issue. > > What I mean is that there are other cases, such as: > - code in the public domain > - reuse of portions of the code that fall under "fair use" or "right to > quote", that could easily apply to things like the 5 lines x86 arith.h or > the examples. And I would think that of the Makefiles too.
You may not be wrong, depending on the concrete case, but relying on such assumptions needlessly complicates licensing for the end user, specifically those that carefully check license obligations and compatibilities. It's way simpler for everyone to make the licensing intention of the copyright holder explicit, even for "trivial" code. It's already way simpler than having such a discussion. ;) Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SES-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux _______________________________________________ Xenomai mailing list [email protected] http://xenomai.org/mailman/listinfo/xenomai
