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 21:19:43 +0100
From: FRIGN <>
Subject: Re: musl licensing

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:13:58 -0400
Rich Felker <> wrote:

Hey Rich,

> 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.

I think the biggest concern on behalf of Google is the code licensed
under public domain. There needs to be a decision for that.

> 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.

As I promoted in my previous mails, I favor an out-of-line
copyright/license info with a small one-line remark in each
source file. This actually makes it easy to update years (only necessary
in the COPYRIGHT file) and makes it easier for people to find out what
license code is under.




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.