Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:41:32 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: musl licensing On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:30:38PM -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 05:31:48PM -0600, Anthony J. Bentley wrote: > > > > Post-Berne no copyright statement is needed at all. Marking license > > terms, authors and dates in individual files is strictly a convenience > > factor for those using or reading the code. > > > > Yes. However, musl has had more than one person express a desire for > per-file copyright notifications. None of these people have expressed > interest in needlessly including a year. With this information, we can > ask if > > /* Copyright the musl authors. Available under a ___-style license, which > can be found at http://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/COPYRIGHT */ > > would meet their needs. Generally I don't think people like (and I don't like) URL references to licenses because there's no guarantee that they don't change or linkrot. Referencing the copy in the top-level source tree COPYRIGHT file avoids that but obviously doesn't meet the needs of someone including it in another tree. If Google's lawyers are happy without adding per-file notices (which I haven't seen them asking for in any of the clarifying follow-up emails; correct me if I'm wrong) then I think we should treat this as a separate issue aside from trying to resolve the current license concerns they have, and follow up on it later. Rich
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.