Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:49:39 -0700
From: Hugues Bruant <>
Subject: Re: musl licensing

> And don't get me wrong, I'm probably one of the biggest enemies of
> the term "intellectual property" in the open source context; for
> companies it's another matter, however, we have to play by the
> rules of the system and be clear about what we mean.
> For lawyers, calling something "public domain" doesn't mean much
> to them. So endure the pain, license it under BSD-0, so Google's
> lawyers and future peoples' lawyers are happy and we actually get
> shit done.
Or go the SQLite way and charge a fee to get an explicit license for
companies that are not comfortable with Public Domain

That's probably much stronger than the musl community would be comfortable
with and also too late as it would require all past contributors to
disclaim copyright, not just Rich but it's worth noting that public domain
ideology is not incompatible with corporate use.

Content of type "text/html" skipped

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.