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 19:47:21 +0000
From: George Kulakowski <>
To:, Christopher Lane <>
Subject: Re: musl licensing

I wanted to mention another small thing, which is simply to update the
names of some files specifically mentioned in COPYRIGHT. I've attached a

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:12 PM Rich Felker <> wrote:

> 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?
> Rich

Content of type "text/html" skipped

Download attachment "patch" of type "application/octet-stream" (1089 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.