Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:31:21 -0800 From: Isaac Dunham <idunham@...abit.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: license survey results On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:55:57 -0500 Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> wrote: <snip> > non-copyleft (MIT/BSD/etc.) crowd: > chneukirchen > solar > nathan mcsween > hiltjo > khm > [rob landley] (in absentia ;-) .. > LGPL w/static-linking exceptions [almost-]crowd: > isaac dunham > gs > I was thinking "LGPL is semi-bearable, non-copyleft is better, and static link exceptions are a good-enough compromise for now; I don't have any code that gives me a reason to expect you to change to non- copyleft." So if you want, you can put me under non-copyleft...which is ~7 vs 1 for each of four options. <snip> > 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. For the record, I'd prefer a license like MIT/BSD to Apache 2.0 & co. (where there's a patent clause)--patent clauses just don't sit so well with me. Not sure that it legally makes sense though! -- Isaac Dunham <idunham@...abit.com>
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.