Project

General

Profile

Actions
Copy link

Bug #112

closed

License headers checkup

Added by Anonymous about 12 years ago. Updated about 12 years ago.

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Mathieu Desnoyers
Category:
-
Target version:
LTTng - 2.0 stable
Start date:
02/26/2012
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:

Description

So I found out "licensecheck" has a recursive mode so it can actually scan more than one directory...

The following few problems come out. Those files do not have a copyright header:
./include/babeltrace/babeltrace-internal.h: No copyright UNKNOWN
./formats/ctf/metadata/ctf-scanner.h: No copyright UNKNOWN
./formats/ctf/metadata/ctf-ast.h: No copyright UNKNOWN

And:
./include/babeltrace/list.h: LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)
(The address in tests/test-bitfield.c is the correct one, for reference)

However, is this really wanted, to ship a LGPL file in a MIT distribution?

Actions
Copy link
 #1

Updated by Mathieu Desnoyers about 12 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Resolved
  • Assignee set to Mathieu Desnoyers

closed by:

commit eb31c5e6bbfbb02093ff45616446c26730898c05
Author: Mathieu Desnoyers <>
Date: Thu Mar 8 12:35:43 2012 -0500

Fix: update missing copyrights and ifdef protection mismatch
Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers &lt;&gt;

I fixed the unknown licenses.

The list.h LGPL header falls under the "trivial header inline functions" of the LGPL.
Quoting the LGPLv2.1 license:

"When a "work that uses the Library" uses material from a header file
that is part of the Library, the object code for the work may be a
derivative work of the Library even though the source code is not.
Whether this is true is especially significant if the work can be
linked without the Library, or if the work is itself a library.  The
threshold for this to be true is not precisely defined by law.
If such an object file uses only numerical parameters, data
structure layouts and accessors, and small macros and small inline
functions (ten lines or less in length), then the use of the object
file is unrestricted, regardless of whether it is legally a derivative
work.  (Executables containing this object code plus portions of the
Library will still fall under Section 6.)"

So if this header ever poses a problem to someone, we'll have to reimplement it, but I doubt there will be any trouble, because all those functions and declarations clearly fall into the "10 lines or less" criterion of the LGPL.

Actions
Copy link

Also available in: Atom PDF