From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/586 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Szabolcs Nagy Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: License survey Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:42:54 +0100 Message-ID: <20120221154253.GV31975@port70.net> 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 1329838995 27522 80.91.229.3 (21 Feb 2012 15:43:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:43:15 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-587-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Feb 21 16:43:13 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 1Rzrrv-0005T4-Ti for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:43:08 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 30640 invoked by uid 550); 21 Feb 2012 15:43:06 -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 30632 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2012 15:43:06 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120219041242.GR146@brightrain.aerifal.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:586 Archived-At: * Rich Felker [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)