3 ms·
GPL 3.0 for a few obvious lines seems to be really an unfitting license. Non-licensed English language version, containing the same information: Once per seco
by acqq 8y ago
GPL 3.0 for a few obvious lines seems to be really an unfitting license.
Non-licensed English language version, containing the same information:
Once per second, read /proc/sys/kernel/random/entropy_avail and if the resulting number is more than 1500 perform a read of 1000 bytes from /dev/random.
- nothrabannosir 8y ago(this is more of a tangential licensing PSA, since we're on the subject) Not licensing something is, ironically, restrictive. If you want to release to public domain (or equivalent), you have to explicitly mention that. E.g. by licensing under CC0. Otherwise, default copyright and "all rights reserved" applies. https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0/ https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc... (But, IMO, nothing wrong with publicizing use of GPL 3! :) thanks either way to both)
- semi-extrinsic 8y agoI think GP is getting at something else. As the length/complexity of the code goes to zero, the copyright and "all rights reserved" vanishes; this is well established, or else we'd all have to license "Hello world" examples from Kernighan and Ritchie's book. If someone writes the same one-sentence pseudocode as GP in a book or blogpost, nobody could reasonably claim that an implementation would fall under the copyright of that book. And I think you'd be very hard pressed to argue it's copyrightable just because someone typed it out into real code.
- Taniwha 8y agosorry, just grabbed my standard disclaimer, can't release code without copyrighting it first. As others have pointed out it's trivial to reimplement in the language of your choice go for it