On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 03:58:19PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > Missed the bug off the CC for this. Sorry.
It seems it did not arrive to debian-legal either. > Begin forwarded message: > > Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 13:34:13 +0000 > From: MJ Ray <m...@phonecoop.coop> > To: debian-le...@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: Bug#919356: dwarves-dfsg: Copyright/licensing is unclear > > > Domenico Andreoli <ca...@debian.org> skribis: > > > the situation of dwarves-dfsg improved a lot over the weekend, the > > only knot left is now the license of hash.h > > > > This file is also present in the kernel [0] with an updated copyright > > but still without license. > > > > I received a private email from somebody in the kernel community who > > already tried to contact Nadia in the past but did not get any reply. > > [...] > > [0] > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/include/linux/hash.h > > > > One of the commits to that file is from Nadia. Sorry if I'm being > dense, but where does the doubt that it is under the kernel's licence > arise? The file does not mention any license. While the kernel has its blanket license, dwarves has not any. Can I simply claim it's a GPL-2.0-only? I mean, I think it's reasonable and, as you said, it's unlikely that Nadia did not notice it was in the kernel but I wanted a second opinion. Do you thin I could even add the SPDX? Thanks, Domenico -- 3B10 0CA1 8674 ACBA B4FE FCD2 CE5B CF17 9960 DE13
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
