ccan code breaks older build farm systems

[Rusty Russell]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 07:30:53 +0200, Volker Lendecke <Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 02:25:44PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 10:14:33 +0200, Volker Lendecke <Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 12:14:08PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > > > Also, the ccan files don't have a copyright/license header
> > > > > comment block.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Does anyone have suggestions to add?  If not, I'll update the ccan
> > > 
> > > Please add the full GPL header to the files.
> > 
> > Sorry, htable is the only one which is GPL.  hash is public domain.  The
> > rest are LGPL:
> 
> Then state so clearly.

It's totally clear.  There's a LICENCE file in each directory, and the
metadata file, _info, has a License: line which refers to it.

In some ways that's clearer than for the rest of the source, where a
simple grep doesn't give you the answer.

> I just want to make sure that we are crystal clear and very
> obvious about the licensing status of our code.

Sure, and I think a README in the top lib/ccan dir explicitly pointing
out that these snippets of code are subject to their own license and
come from external sources makes sense.

I also think a one line per file pointing out the LICENSE is a good
idea.  But before going beyond that, I wanted to know if anyone had
received legal advice different from mine?

> For
> third-party code we also must make very sure the source is
> authoritative to publish the stuff under the license we are
> importing it under. I've had regular queries from lawyers
> about exactly these questions in the past, and you are not
> in a good situation if you can't answer them or even have to
> think twice.

Agreed, and that's not a problem with lib/ccan/*.

> Regarding the value of a long GPL header on a small file: Is
> your disk space really that limited?

The CCAN modules are, by definition, small pieces of code.  I resist
*anything* which clutters the actual code.

I was annoyed at having to include the LICENSE file in each directory,
but without it there's a real possibility that it would get lost, given
this code is designed to be copied one whole subdir at a time.

Hope that clarifies,
Rusty.