Help on relicensing derived code

[Henrique Almeida]

 Good news, in Android errno, there's a statement that suggests that
constant values are not copyrightable. :-)

http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/bionic.git;a=blob;f=libc/kernel/common/asm-generic/errno-base.h;h=2fb4a336454e47f8bf0764fd253a78be633f9652;hb=HEAD

 /****************************************************************************
 ****************************************************************************
 ***
 ***   This header was automatically generated from a Linux kernel header
 ***   of the same name, to make information necessary for userspace to
 ***   call into the kernel available to libc.  It contains only constants,
 ***   structures, and macros generated from the original header, and thus,
 ***   contains no copyrightable information.
 ***
 ****************************************************************************
 ****************************************************************************/

 But does this mean I can copy those values without using an automated
procedure ?

 Damned licensing hell.

2009/7/13 Henrique Almeida <hdante at gmail.com>:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Henrique Almeida <hdante at gmail.com>
> Date: 2009/7/13
> Subject: Re: Help on relicensing derived code
> To: "Carlos A. M. dos Santos" <unixmania at gmail.com>
>
>
> 2009/7/13 Carlos A. M. dos Santos <unixmania at gmail.com>:
>> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Henrique Almeida<hdante at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  I need to write an "errno.h" with constant values used by the FreeBSD
>>> kernel. My project uses exclusively the 2 clause BSD license. I
>>> expected to copy those values from FreeBSD errno.h. However, FreeBSD
>>> errno.h has 3 clauses.[...]
>>
>> Do you have any particular reason to refuse the current 3-clause license?
>
>  Yes, I've decided to choose uniform licensing for the whole project.
> I think it will be better for users this way. I'll try to stick with
> that unless completelly impossible.
>
>>
>>>[...] I'm a total newbie in licensing procedures so,
>>> it's not clear what to do.
>>>
>>>  - Relicense the code as a 2 license BSD, because it's a derived work
>>> (prefered choice)
>>
>> You can't do that. The copyright owners are The Regents of the
>> University of California and UNIX System Laboratories (now Novell).
>> Changing the license without their permission would be legally
>> considered theft.
>
>  Notice that I won't relicense the original code. I only need to
> relicense the derived work (my own version of errno.h), as described
> in the copyright law section of the following link:
>
>  http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html
>
>  Maybe we could find a lawyer to explain that. :-/
>
>>
>>>  - If the above is not allowed, ask the original authors of errno.h to
>>> provide an alternative 2 clause BSD license.
>>
>> You must ask the copyright owners, UC and Novell. I don't believe you
>> will have success any time soon, however.
>>
>>>  Which choice is legally correct ?
>>
>> The second one, but I strongly advise you to adopt the file as is. The
>> license is already fairly liberal.
>
>  Please answer again, given the comment above. :-) I still have hope I
> can use a 2 clause license.
>
>>
>> --
>> My preferred quotation of Robert Louis Stevenson is "You cannot
>> make an omelette without breaking eggs". Not because I like the
>> omelettes, but because I like the sound of eggs being broken.
>>
>
>
>
> --
>  Henrique Dante de Almeida
>  hdante at gmail.com
>
>
>
> --
>  Henrique Dante de Almeida
>  hdante at gmail.com
>



-- 
 Henrique Dante de Almeida
 hdante at gmail.com