[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 09:01:22 +0100
From: u-uy74@...ey.se
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: musl licensing
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 02:49:55PM -0400, Ed Maste wrote:
> 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?
(speaking for Dapty / Aetey)
The less legalese stuff in the source files the better.
A single authoritative license file for the whole package, covering all
the files is best.
Otherwise - am I assumed to actually have read and interpreted _every_
file to make sure I follow all the possible licenses and their variations??
(Isn't this the biggest lie of our time "I have read the license terms" ? :)
The authorship is different. You do not have to "agree" to it, so do
not _have_ to read it even if some licenses force you to duplicate
the authorship information at distribution.
Practically, while looking at the source, it is nice to to see in the
files who wrote which part of the code and when, even though this is
not a substitute for a modification log.
Rune
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.
