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 17:42:31 -0400
From: Ed Maste <>
Subject: Re: musl licensing

On 17 March 2016 at 15:16, Rich Felker <> wrote:
> Indeed, I was thinking more along the lines of whether we're to the
> point that standard licenses could be referenced by name/identifier
> without an in-tree copy.

My reservation is that there are tools which scan source trees for
license statements, and they may not parse such a statement.

Also, generally speaking I think a phrase like "the MIT license" is
unambiguous and understood by everyone on this list, but that may not
be true a decade from now.

> I think our community tends to dislike files which are 20+ lines of
> copyright/license comments followed by <10 lines of code. Whether
> there are situations where the file size makes a practical difference,
> I don't know. One observation: on a standard-size terminal it's likely
> you wouldn't seen _any_ code on the first page with a full-license
> comment header.

I grew up in the BSD world so I'm used to it -- just jump down a page
after you open a source file :-)  I certainly understand the desire to
avoid it though.

>From later in the thread,
> // Copyright 2016 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
> // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
> // found in the LICENSE file.

This seems to be a good compromise to me, even though it still needs
special treatment in my case of assembling software using portions of
code from different sources.

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.