Re: Files in gcc/ with no copyright notice

[law at redhat dot com]

In message <Pine.LNX.4.58.0310210958340.25369@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk>, "
Joseph S. Myers" writes:
 >There are a lot of files in gcc/ without a proper copyright notice.  
 ><http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain_8.html> states that all files of more
 >than ten lines should have a copyright notice and license notice, or a
 >notice saying that they are in the public domain.
 >
 >Here is a list of files under gcc/ (excluding testsuites) that fail this
 >requirement.  (I've excluded for now ChangeLogs and other documentation -
 >this list should just be program files - and some short headers only
 >slightly over the ten lines.)  I've only checked for "copyright" or
 >"public domain" (case-insensitively), so some other files may be lacking
 >license notices.  Some of these files have invalid notices with only "(C)" 
 >and not "Copyright".  Some have license notices but no copyright notices.
 >
 >Most of these files are in gcc/config/ so if target maintainers each deal
 >with working out the correct copyright dates for their files (and whether
 >they should have the libgcc exception in each case) and adding the notices 
 >the list will become a lot shorter.
I think it's rather pointless to add a big copyright header on something
which likely isn't copyrightable (fair use).  Little 5 line files aren't
going to be copyrightable.

In fact, I would probably recommend automatically purging t- files from
whatever script you're running.


 > Some of the files are only slightly 
 >over ten lines, but some are quite long, e.g. config/i386/athlon.md.
I'd expect that if you purge the t- files you'll get a list of 
the files which really do need copyright notices...

jeff