Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:55:57 -0500
From: Rich Felker <>
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:
nathan mcsween
[rob landley] (in absentia ;-)

LGPL [non-]crowd:

LGPL w/static-linking exceptions [almost-]crowd:
isaac dunham

LGPL w/commercial licenses [non-]crowd:

only-care-that-the-code-rocks crowd:

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

Thanks for everyone who participated in the survey!


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.