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 11:55:27 +0100
From: FRIGN <>
Subject: Re: musl licensing

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 11:31:25 +0100
Szabolcs Nagy <> wrote:

Hey Szabolcs,

> there should be a way to document copyright without changing
> source files.  if google has some best practice for that we
> can follow it i think.  (one line comment is ok, but i'd prefer
> no license related text in source files.)

One line never hurts. It would also be convenient for new contributors,
because adding this one line automatically implies they want to be in
the central "LICENSE". This would actually favor homogenization of
licensing, which would make life much easier for everybody.

	/* See LICENSE file for copyright and license details. */

> bionic actually generates its kernel interface headers from (gpl) code
> and each file has the comment:
> (...)
> so it is ok to claim 'not copyrightable', we just have to find a way
> to do this without cluttering each header file.

I don't think we can apply this argument here. Also, there's no reason not
to just use ISC or BSD-0.
A central LICENSE file would also make it easier to see which people
contributed. Using git signs or other version control means would remove
all this valuable information if you for instance just downloaded the
tarball, which is unacceptable.




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.