[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [GNUnet-developers] spdx proposal

From: Christian Grothoff
Subject: Re: [GNUnet-developers] spdx proposal
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 10:46:27 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0

On 1/16/19 10:05 PM, address@hidden wrote:
> Thanks for looking into the thread.
> I've started applying patches to master, and it's rather easy.
> I will document how to proceed, but as FSFE puts it, it should be
> easy to do automatically. I'm just learning to apply it and we have
> some files which need comments or pose questions.
> I don't have my notes with me right now, but the apparmor files
> are one example.
> Do we just cc0/0bsd everything which is small enough?

It's more about being trivial, not being 'small'. There should be things
that are simply not copyrightable (there used to be a "creativity
threshold"), or things we really want anyone to freely copy
(configuration files, for example, but also if anyone takes inspiration
from one of our "" build system bits, they shouldn't worry
about AGPL vs LGPL. But really the central point is that the logic is
trivial, any semi-competent engineer should arrive at an identical or
completely equivalent solution (set *these* configuration options,
compile and link *these* files). That stuff is too trivial for anyone to
be concerned over copyrights. But it doesn't matter (in most cases) if
the is 10 lines or 500, so "small enough" isn't a 100%
accurate description.  Rule of thumb: anything *.conf(.in) and anything is a good candidate for cc0/0bsd in my view.  For anything
in contrib/, it is probably a reasonable default as well, but there are
exceptions like contrib/benchmark/collect.awk (where GPL/AGPL makes sense).

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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