From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/581 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: License survey Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:51:22 -0500 Message-ID: <20120219225122.GT146@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20120219041242.GR146@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <87zkcfc4hz.fsf@gmail.com> <20120219154859.GA16314@openwall.com> <20120219161812.GS146@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120219222531.GA35102@intma.in> 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 1329691919 7843 80.91.229.3 (19 Feb 2012 22:51:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 22:51:59 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-582-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sun Feb 19 23:51:58 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 1RzFbq-00065b-4R for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 23:51:58 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 11952 invoked by uid 550); 19 Feb 2012 22:51:57 -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 11944 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2012 22:51:57 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120219222531.GA35102@intma.in> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:581 Archived-At: On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 05:25:31PM -0500, Kurt H Maier wrote: > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:18:12AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote: > > > > One thing I like about copyleft and having external copyright holders > > is that the rules apply to me too. > > License choice and copyright assignment are two different issues. If > musl continues with a copyleft license, I'll be slightly disappointed > and that's about it. If copyright is assigned to the FSF, it's going to > become terrible, just like everything else the FSF touches. If > copyright were assigned to some arbitrary mediator just to shield you > from liability at work, I'd be less concerned... but the FSF is where > software goes to lose its mind. "External copyright holders" purely meant code written by contributors other than myself, not any sort of copyright assignment. As far as I'm concerned copyright assignment is counterproductive and one of the stupidest practices associated with FLOSS development, so no need to worry about that. Rich