On 2012-06-07, Dave Hart <h...@ntp.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Steve Kostecke <koste...@ntp.org> wrote: >> On 2012-06-07, Dave Hart <h...@ntp.org> wrote: >>> I am aware of no part of the ntpd tarballs that is solely licensed >>> under GPL. ?libopts is dual-licensed BSD or GPL at user's choice. ?The >>> rest of the package is BSD-style, as seen on the pages above. ?If you >>> are aware of any GPL-only code we're distributing, please speak up so >>> that we can correct the mistake. >> >> List of files containing a GPL License: > > Thanks, Steve. The tool misses a number of exceptions in libopts and > Bison output (implying they're GPL-only), but it also found libopts > files licensed under GPL with no obvious exception, though I hope they > are oversights that can be corrected easily.
I am not at all sure that you can assert copyright on a generated file (rather than on the originals from which they are generated) since there is absolutely no creativity in the geenration ( a requirement for atracting copyright). Any you certainly could not tack on a different license on the generated file than on the files from which is was generated (ie, its only copyright might be as a derived work). > > Thanks for filing the bug report. More details for those interested in: > > http://bugs.ntp.org/2214 > > Cheers, > Dave Hart _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
