Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:49:55 -0400 From: Ed Maste <emaste@...ebsd.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: musl licensing On 16 March 2016 at 23:19, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: > > What would be the minimal requirement for you not to need to modify > the files? Full license text? Or would something like having the > copyright holders named and "licensed under standard MIT license" or > similar (possibly with a reference of some sort) suffice? I think it depends on context. For example, If we planned to import musl into our contrib/ tree and build it as a standalone entity the current form (with no individual file statements) would be just fine. But in this case, where I hope to combine a few files into our existing libc I'll want the license text in the file as it's consistent with the rest of our libc, and it avoids adding a MIT-LICENSE.txt, MUSL-LICENSE.txt or similar file to the tree. > I'm trying to gauge if we should try to make it so you don't need to > modify the files, or if that's not a practical goal while avoiding > massive comment-spam in source files. I don't think it's a practical goal to entirely avoid needing to modify files; I had to do so for a minor header variations or some such anyhow. From my perspective, my order of preference is full authorship + license, authorship + license statement, status quo. I do understand wanting to avoid the full license text though. Do other potential downstream consumers of musl have a preference?
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.