From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/571
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Solar Designer <solar@openwall.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general
Subject: Re: License survey
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:17:50 +0400
Message-ID: <20120219121750.GA15739@openwall.com>
References: <20120219041242.GR146@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1329653876 14638 80.91.229.3 (19 Feb 2012 12:17:56 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:17:56 +0000 (UTC)
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Original-X-From: musl-return-572-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sun Feb 19 13:17:55 2012
Return-path: <musl-return-572-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>
Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org
Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200])
	by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <musl-return-572-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>)
	id 1Rz5iE-0001Xy-Mq
	for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 13:17:54 +0100
Original-Received: (qmail 7512 invoked by uid 550); 19 Feb 2012 12:17:54 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
Original-Received: (qmail 7503 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2012 12:17:54 -0000
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120219041242.GR146@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:571
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/571>

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 11:12:42PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> Which is more important, copyleft or widespread usage of musl?

The latter, unless you intend to make money selling commercial licenses
(this would be a reason to have the publicly released musl copylefted).

> What would be your ideal license to see musl under?

Cut-down BSD, to the point of being copyright-only with no restrictions
at all - but using the same wording as the BSD licenses do for the
remaining portion of it.  That is:

<Copyright statements here>

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted.

<Warranty disclaimer here>

To me, this looks more obviously compatible with other Open Source
licenses than the usual N-clause BSD licenses are.  (Disclaimer: I am
not a lawyer.)

Alexander