Re: License survey

[Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net>]

* Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> [2012-02-18 23:12:42 -0500]:
> Which is more important, copyleft or widespread usage of musl?

i think the goal should be quality software that can be
audited, modified, maintained, studied and is useful

copyleft is not a goal, widespread usage should be a
side effect

> Which copyleft issue(s) matter most: ensuring the project gets access
> to third-party improvements, protecting users' rights to study and
> reverse engineer, or protecting users' rights to access the code and
> make source-level modifications?
> 
> Is it important to have a license where the official distribution is
> not privileged over third-party redistributions?
> 

i'd encourage sharing third party improvements
(and try to make it easy)
but would not try to enforce it
(except may be by publishing evildoers on a wall of shame)

i'd try to provide source code access, allow modifications etc
and signal that it will remain this way in the future

i'd allow binary or source code redistribution
with the only restriction that the origin of the information
must not be misrepresented and should be provided when asked
(but this should be dealt with by some general law against
fraud and not in individual licenses)

> Is the LGPL's handling of static linking problematic to you?

it haven't caused me problems yet, but i don't think it's practical

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

i don't mind lgpl and i don't mind non-copyleft licensing either

i support penalizing those who treat software as
private consumable instead of public good
i support punishing any evil non-cooperative
behaviour
but i'm not sure if licensing is the right place
to fight these
(it's more of a user education issue,
licensing is based on bogus ideology itself)

oh and i definitely don't want to litter precious
source code with legal nonsense (copyright notices)