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 23:19:25 -0400
From: Rich Felker <>
To: Ed Maste <>
Subject: Re: musl licensing

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 02:01:17AM +0000, Ed Maste wrote:
> On 16 March 2016 at 20:34, Rich Felker <> wrote:
> >
> > What about authorship/copyright holders per-file?
> I have an interest in this as it applies to downstream consumers who
> wish to use a portion of the software -- for example, I'd like to use
> musl's memmem and strstr in FreeBSD's libc.
> I've proposed copying the text from the top-level COPYRIGHT into the
> individual files themselves. (In code review at
> if you're interested.) If there were
> a reference to the standalone copyright/license file it would need to
> be modified anyway. Thus, from my perspective it doesn't much matter
> if the original has no statement, or a one-line reference to a
> separate file.

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'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.


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.