This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC] Add missing copyrights
- From: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Add missing copyrights
- References: <20130611133800 dot GA4128 at domone dot kolej dot mff dot cuni dot cz> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1306111928100 dot 897 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20130611200107 dot 34B552C058 at topped-with-meat dot com> <51B78716 dot 9090701 at redhat dot com> <20130611210407 dot 25B9F2C09D at topped-with-meat dot com> <51B79607 dot 4050002 at redhat dot com> <20130611213518 dot 5D9C82C09F at topped-with-meat dot com> <51B7A361 dot 5030904 at redhat dot com> <20130611224559 dot A79852C045 at topped-with-meat dot com> <51B7AB5B dot 4070605 at redhat dot com>
> Thanks for talking this out. I'm sufficiently convinced that you're
> probably right, but I'm still worried about missing license headers.
>
> The only solution appears to be good old fashioned human review.
We could try to do something automated to distinguish the generic cases
from the cases that need the exception text. That is probably worthwhile
anyway, since in the past we've had (for years at a time) files that should
have had exception text but didn't, meaning zillions of users were
inadvertently committing pedantic LGPL violations though we intended that
the exact things they were doing be non-violating. If we had that, then
something closer to full automation to check/enforce that we put copyright
headers on everything would be safe from that issue.