[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:41:32 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: musl licensing
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:30:38PM -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 05:31:48PM -0600, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> >
> > Post-Berne no copyright statement is needed at all. Marking license
> > terms, authors and dates in individual files is strictly a convenience
> > factor for those using or reading the code.
> >
>
> Yes. However, musl has had more than one person express a desire for
> per-file copyright notifications. None of these people have expressed
> interest in needlessly including a year. With this information, we can
> ask if
>
> /* Copyright the musl authors. Available under a ___-style license, which
> can be found at http://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/COPYRIGHT */
>
> would meet their needs.
Generally I don't think people like (and I don't like) URL references
to licenses because there's no guarantee that they don't change or
linkrot. Referencing the copy in the top-level source tree COPYRIGHT
file avoids that but obviously doesn't meet the needs of someone
including it in another tree.
If Google's lawyers are happy without adding per-file notices (which I
haven't seen them asking for in any of the clarifying follow-up
emails; correct me if I'm wrong) then I think we should treat this as
a separate issue aside from trying to resolve the current license
concerns they have, and follow up on it later.
Rich
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.
