On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 12:12 +0100, David Disseldorp wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The following licensing concerns were raised by our legal department...
>
> pcp-3.6.10/qa/src/xmktime.c carries the following proprietary license:
David,
Thanks for spotting this. It is simply an oversight ... when SGI
released _all_ of the PCP QA code under the GPL we swept through
removing the proprietary licence verbage ... for some reason I cannot
explain, xmktime.c was missed. There is nothing special about xmktime.c
as it is specific diagnostic code developed by the PCP engineers for PCP
QA and not based on any other code fragments.
I have committed a change to remove these words so that only the
copyright assertion remains, just like all the other source files in the
qa/src directory.
> */
>
> Also, pthread_barrier.h carries an unusual license (or rather, lack of
> license). It states:
> * Brent Priddy's code from http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3640853
> * included here with permission
> * On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 11:27 -0500, Brent Priddy wrote:
> * You are free to use stack overflow answers from me without license.
> That statement is confusing - the scope of 'use' here is not really dealt with
> in depth - does that include copy, modify and redistribute? ...
That was my understanding from Brent's email to me.
> The author should
> really have spelled this out more comprehensively. Further, the statement
> "without license" is also confusing. The very grant of the right to "use" is
> in
> itself a "license" - or is the author purporting to release his works into the
> public domain? As you can see, the statement raises more issues than it solves
> and really should be rephrased by the author. If his/her intent was to license
> his/her answers liberally, he/she should have chosen an existing liberal
> license such as MIT.
I will correspond with Brent and seek clarification.
Cheers, Ken.
|