Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 19:47:21 +0000 From: George Kulakowski <kulakowski@...gle.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com, Christopher Lane <lanechr@...il.com> 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 diff. On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:12 PM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> 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.