[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: licensing of intloop() in libddekit/interrupt.c

From: Da Zheng
Subject: Re: licensing of intloop() in libddekit/interrupt.c
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 14:12:46 -0500

Sorry for disappearing for years.
Is there anything I can do for you?


On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Olaf Buddenhagen
<olafbuddenhagen@gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>> El 07/11/15 a les 12:11, Robert Millan ha escrit:
>> > Unfortunately I didn't get any reply from Zheng Da. Does someone
>> > know if Zheng is using another email address nowadays?
> While we haven't heard from him in years, I was able to dig something up
> that seems current: http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~zhengda/
> The linked GitHub account ( https://github.com/icoming ) has an (empty)
> subhurd repository -- so it's definitely the right guy :-) There is an
> address there: dzheng5@jhu.edu
> There is pretty recent activity; so it should be up to date I hope.
>> > In case he can't be reached anymore, I traced origin of the
>> > intloop() routine
> [...]
>> > With this we have "Copyright (C) 2009, 2010 Zheng Da", but still no
>> > licensing information.
> If you are resonably sure that the code in question was indeed added by
> him, not imported, then maybe we don't even need to contact him: he
> signed a copyright assignment for the Hurd of course, and I assume it
> applies to this code as well -- so the copyright holder is actually the
> FSF.
>> > Unfortunately this gets a bit confusing: some parts of the Hurd are
>> > GPLv2 and some are GPLv2+.
> It should all be v2+, except for bits imported from Linux and/or DDE.
>> > Then the file Zheng was modifying [1] is imported from DDE/L4 which
>> > is GPLv2 [2].
> [...]
>> > What should we make of this? It's somewhat relevant as the code will
>> > be linked into librumpdev_pci, which in turn will be linked by its
>> > final users in the application layer.
> By default we can assume that the added code carries the same licensing
> terms as the rest of the file, i.e. GPLv2 only. There certainly should
> be no problem getting permission from the FSF to distribute it under v2+
> terms; and considering it's nothing strategic, I'm pretty sure we could
> also get a permissive license, if we think this is preferable to match
> the rest of librump...
> (I don't know how the code fits together though -- it *might* be
> preferable to actually put the Hurd interface part into a library in the
> Hurd repository, which is what Antti suggested I think...)
> -antrik-

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]