Re: Linux kernel complete licence check, Q.16
Giacomo Catenazzi <cate@debian.org> writes:
> First paragraph: ok.
> Second paragraph: (legally should the "this copyright" replaced with
> "this licence"?)
Yes, that would be better.
> But the trouble:
> Function 'hash' has unknow origin
> So IMHO, IANAL, we should not assume GPL not GPL compatible license
> ot the code, right?
That's correct, we should not make such an assumption.
> So the function is very simple, enought simple to be free?
> Anyone kwnow a similar function but GPLized or PD (to replace this
> function)?
Being simple really doesn't matter. However, glibc contains the
function, so I'd just snarf the version from there.
Reply to: