Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:13:58 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: musl licensing A few more general thoughts on this thread: 1. Staying on topic. The topic at hand is not "relicensing" or anything crazy, just figuring out what's not sufficiently clear to Google's lawyers about our current licensing or documentation of copyright status, and whether there are "non-functional" (clarifying) changes that could be made to the source tree that would meet their needs and perhaps also improve the ease with which other users who have to deal with legal deparements can use musl. 2. In-line vs out-of-line copyright/license info. The out-of-line form we have now has some benefits, mainly in avoiding source file clutter, avoiding diff hunks to update copyright years, etc. But it also has disadvantages such as making it easy to forget to update and arguably being hard to interpret. I think this is an area where it would be useful to discuss pros and cons and whether there are in-between solutions that get the best properties of both. 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.