Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:13:58 -0400
From: Rich Felker <>
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.


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.