From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/575 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Solar Designer Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: License survey Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:48:59 +0400 Message-ID: <20120219154859.GA16314@openwall.com> References: <20120219041242.GR146@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <87zkcfc4hz.fsf@gmail.com> 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 1329666546 32642 80.91.229.3 (19 Feb 2012 15:49:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:49:06 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-576-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sun Feb 19 16:49:05 2012 Return-path: 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 ) id 1Rz90a-0004RR-QR for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:49:04 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 26254 invoked by uid 550); 19 Feb 2012 15:49:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 26246 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2012 15:49:04 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87zkcfc4hz.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:575 Archived-At: On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 02:55:04PM +0100, Christian Neukirchen wrote: > Also, please do not reword the BSD license. I think that removing some or all clauses is not the same as rewording. This has been done before when we went from 4-clause to 3-clause and 2-clause. What I propose is 0-clause BSD. That said, I do see some value in using a widespread license as-is. > If you want a minimal > version of it, use the ISC license: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license ISC license is my second best choice. > (I think having to keep the copyright note is a good idea, too.) I disagree; to me, the only good thing about this requirement is that it is so common, so we can use an existing license template as-is. ISC license says: "provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies." I think this is somewhat ambiguous and potentially problematic. Does this copyright notice and this permission notice have to appear inside a program binary statically linked with libc under that license (thus including a copy of the libc code)? Does it have to appear in the documentation of such program? The current practice would be that no, this would typically not be the case - but is it valid per the license or not? And should musl start to provide such a const string for inclusion in all programs statically linked against musl? That would be +300 bytes to each binary (not including the warranty disclaimer), and more once there are multiple copyright holders to list. Sure, that's not how we and others interpret the license so far, so perhaps there's precedent that this is not required - but strictly speaking that's not what the license says, and not all countries have precedent law. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. Oh, and this does start to look like a bikeshed, so I think I won't comment further. I think Rich merely wanted us to vote, which we did. :-) Alexander