[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:07:23 +0100
From: FRIGN <dev@...gn.de>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: musl licensing
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:49:08 +0100
u-uy74@...ey.se wrote:
Hey Rune,
> Copyright law is a [legacy originating from the Britain's] censuring
> framework, which happens to be applied to software for no technical reason
> (does a copyright notice influence the functioning of the program?) but
> for various political ones.
thanks for the history lesson. It still doesn't change the fact that
this topic needs to be addressed. Copyright law is not going to change
in the forseeable future, and I think the best that can happen to musl
is when it's used broadly (which implies broad testing and more chances
of patches flowing in).
I understand the caution by the companies when licensing isn't clear.
Given public domain practically implies "all rights reserved", there's
nothing stopping a "malicious" developer from making claims after
deployment. The term "public domain" is not very clear after all.
I also want to see musl in widespread use, and even if I probably
can't expect a relicensing to ISC or something, one can still expect
the sections which are "public domain" to be licensed under BSD-0
or ISC or MIT to clear up the licensing situation.
The CLA comment by Petr was probably a misunderstanding and I assume
he probably meant the case in which a license change won't happen
upstream, but as an exception for Google.
Cheers
FRIGN
--
FRIGN <dev@...gn.de>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
