[Bug 670302] Review Request: libbacklight - Linux backlight abstraction library

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670302

--- Comment #5 from Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> 2011-01-19 00:11:11 EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)

> > Still no legal information in libbacklight.h (no copyright/license).
> 
> I don't think there's anything substantively copyrightable in the file, but the
> project copyright file included in %doc.

Well, a file without explicit copyright is implicitly legally owned by its
author. As only the author is legitimated to grant a license on a file, such
files are legally unsafe to use by users. Whether a detached license file is
sufficient for granting a license, is legally controversial. 
I.e. your works' users are only safe from being sued by you (rsp. this code's
legal owner), when a piece of code contains copyright/license terms inside of
its sources.

It's the reasoning why e.g. the FSF insists on explict copyright/license terms
being included in each of their source files.

> > libbacklight.h includes <pciaccess.h>
> 
> It's needed for struct pci_device, but the missing Requires was a bug.
OK, then you'd have to reflect this dependency to libbacklight.pc, also
(consider the case of libpciaccess having been installed to a non-standard
directory).

I am not 100% sure what to do. As you only #include <pciaccess.h> and don't
link against libpciaccess, "Requires: pciaccess" would go too far, because it
pulls in -lpciaccess.

May-be "Requires.private: pciaccess" would be better - It would pull in
-lpciaccess only for pkg-config --static), but wouldn't do so for dynamic
linkage.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.