From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9652
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: u-uy74@aetey.se
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general
Subject: Re: musl licensing
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:17:48 +0100
Message-ID: <20160317081748.GF13856@example.net>
References: <CABBv4TYwScxbOE6YxJpK5maFoQDPFtn6VSKmh_+qA8k3Nk5=oA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160315221757.GA3522@openwall.com>
 <56E98AB1.9030309@openwall.com>
 <CABBv4TYiUzpz8Xe4K2DddNXjE1fb9UyYoX+O4Dh9j7QefU2VHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160316234656.GQ9349@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <CAKFisccCXCpcQFMwgX0JR8dRhpecfU9MAubkZx+5v9kyMjn3gA@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1458202709 9703 80.91.229.3 (17 Mar 2016 08:18:29 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:18:29 +0000 (UTC)
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Original-X-From: musl-return-9665-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Mar 17 09:18:21 2016
Return-path: <musl-return-9665-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>
Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org
Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200])
	by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <musl-return-9665-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>)
	id 1agT8N-000081-31
	for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:18:19 +0100
Original-Received: (qmail 24306 invoked by uid 550); 17 Mar 2016 08:18:15 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-ID: <musl.lists.openwall.com>
Original-Received: (qmail 24288 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2016 08:18:15 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fripost.org; h=
	in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:content-type
	:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:subject:from:from
	:date:date; s=20140703; t=1458202682; x=1460017083; bh=H9CYy235u
	kQ9zc2MvplWfUAY0b3PIJl/R/A9GLNDG+0=; b=jHvcj12lv+EMZophchtVZi2+F
	otSI6pc4i16SqmmMeaERszwFCojK4KtIdZt1UrT6YSnRfJwn0/80HrVqUr6qKIyg
	qfPfY+2KeKuSwyJZgECo+4bXbjtyF+DSx+u2n+sBVNs5C6wxPJGYkdTu1/3Kr04u
	narEWefbPffHJXNA2M=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at fripost.org
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKFisccCXCpcQFMwgX0JR8dRhpecfU9MAubkZx+5v9kyMjn3gA@mail.gmail.com>
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9652
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9652>

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 07:06:25PM -0700, Christopher Lane wrote:
> ... if releasing under e.g. BSD0 is OK when PD isn't
> valid, why isn't it OK for all situations.

I expect that it is illegal in certain jurisdictions to claim
copyright on a public domain matter.

This is not a problem for the musl user (Google) but potentially endangers
the developer who wrote the questionable copyright statement.

This may explain why Google explicitly mentions "non-copyrightable" in a case
when it represents the developer party:

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:31:25AM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> bionic actually generates its kernel interface headers from (gpl) code
> and each file has the comment:
> 
>  ***   This header was automatically generated from a Linux kernel header
>  ***   of the same name, to make information necessary for userspace to
>  ***   call into the kernel available to libc.  It contains only constants,
>  ***   structures, and macros generated from the original header, and thus,
>  ***   contains no copyrightable information.

So this is actually all about which party shall take the risks,
musl or Google. Isn't it?

Rune