Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:55:57 -0500 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: license survey results Here's what I compiled as the "results" of the license survey. I've broken it down into very minimal classifications of the opinions everybody expressed, so please let me know if you think I misunderstood or misrepresented your ideas (or if I missed you). non-copyleft (MIT/BSD/etc.) crowd: chneukirchen solar nathan mcsween hiltjo khm [rob landley] (in absentia ;-) LGPL [non-]crowd: luka LGPL w/static-linking exceptions [almost-]crowd: isaac dunham gs LGPL w/commercial licenses [non-]crowd: aep only-care-that-the-code-rocks crowd: nsz In summary, it looks like everyone except Luka (and perhaps aep) who responded would like to see at least *some* additional level of permissiveness to musl's license terms, and the largest single group is in favor of non-copyleft/"permissive" terms. As such I'll definitely be making some licensing changes down the line. Please give me some time to weigh the benefits of the different options and focus on the code, especially at this time while widespread deployment is still a ways off. My idea right now (subject to change at my own whim or suggestions from the community) is that the license might change at the 0.9 or 1.0 milestone, especially if it looks like we could be positioned to push musl into widespread usage "in the wild" at that point. Thanks for everyone who participated in the survey! 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.