We would say how *sources* are licensed, but actually most user care about the
resulting binaries. So say how the *binaries* are licensed. I used the word
"effectively" because the permissive licenses don't set any requirements on the
binaries, so the license of sources is a complex mix, but the resulting
binaries have a simple effective license.
Also, make it clear that the GPLv2 license applies to udev programs, but not
the shared library. Based on private correspondence, there's some confusion
about this.
Arguably, CC0 is just fine for examples since they are not code. But it's
easier to be consistent and just use MIT-0 for all "documentation". Thus,
the license is changed similarly code examples under man/.
Based on 'git shortlog -ns network/*' and 'git log -p', the following folks
should ack this:
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
Lennart Poettering
Tom Gundersen
Yu Watanabe
Daan De Meyer
Marc-André Lureau
See parent commit for explanation.
git blame shows Martin Pitt is the author of the code.
(I was considering whether we should instead drop this file, but it's still
useful for *distributions*. Eveen if we discourage people from using sysv
scripts, distributions will have to deal with them for a while yet.)
Quoting Richard Fontana in [1]:
CC0 has been listed by Fedora as a 'good' license for code and content
(corresponding to allowed and allowed-content under the new system). We plan
to classify CC0 as allowed-content only, so that CC0 would no longer be
allowed for code.
Over a long period of time a consensus has been building in FOSS that
licenses that preclude any form of patent licensing or patent forbearance
cannot be considered FOSS. CC0 has a clause that says: "No trademark or
patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed
or otherwise affected by this document." (The trademark side of that clause
is nonproblematic from a FOSS licensing norms standpoint.) The regular
Creative Commons licenses have similar clauses.
For the case of our documentation snippets, patent issues do not matter much.
But it is always nicer to have a license that is considerred acceptable without
any further considerations. So let's change the license to the (now recommended
replacement) MIT-0.
[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/NO7KGDNL5GX3KCB7T3XTGFA3QPSUJA6R/
Using 'git blame -b' and 'git log -p --follow', I identified the following
folks as having made non-trivial changes to those snippets:
Lennart Poettering
Tom Gundersen
Luca Bocassi
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
Thomas Mühlbacher
Daan De Meyer
I'll ask for confirmation in the pull request.
Same justification as the previous commit.
$ for i in network/*-*; do git blame $i;done | less
shows that those files were written by Tom Gundersen, Lennart Poettering, Yu
Watanabe, me, and Marc-André Lureau.
Using OpenSSL brings in an additional dependency for all users of
libsystemd.so even though it's just one API that makes use of it.
The khash implementation is awkward as it requires context switches and
computation inside the kernel, thus leaving the process.
Remove both from libsystemd.so, and use exclusively the internal hmac fallback.
While this is not optimized, the sd-id128 API is not used in
performance-critical contexts where hardware acceleration would make a
noticeable difference.
All other examples were relicensed to CC0-1.0 since they are intended
to be copied and pasted anywhere without any restrictions.
Relicense the last one too.
It makes it easier to process the license automatically like other files.
The text of the license in tools/chromiumos/LICENSE matches
https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause.html exactly.
