Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 15:12:09 -0400
From: Rich Felker <>
To: Christopher Lane <>
Subject: Re: musl licensing

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:16:49AM -0700, Christopher Lane wrote:
> > Some version of the PD text can remain in place but I can clarify that
> > it's my/our belief about these files and does not negate the fact that
> > we're licensing the whole project, including these files as part of
> > it, under the MIT license. Assuming we get a suitable response for #3
> > above, I can also add the text that the following contributors
> > (listed) all grant the attribution exception for these files. And for
> > future port contributors I can ask them to do the same at the time of
> > contribution.
> >
> > Is this acceptable? If it sounds like it may be but there are
> > questions about the specific language I can prepare a proposed diff
> > for the COPYRIGHT file for review.
> >
> So yeah, this is a good idea.  Please send the diff and I'll get their
> comments on the specific language.

Please let me know what you (or your lawyers) think of the attached
diff. As an extra bonus I made an effort to avoid the actual words
"Public Domain" since they apparently scare people off. Does this
work? Does anyone from the community (esp. any of the contributors I'd
be asking to agree) have objections to it?


View attachment "COPYRIGHT.diff" of type "text/plain" (1976 bytes)

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.