Re: license survey results

[Isaac Dunham <idunham@lavabit.com>]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:55:57 -0500
Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:
<snip>
> non-copyleft (MIT/BSD/etc.) crowd:
> chneukirchen
> solar
> nathan mcsween
> hiltjo
> khm
> [rob landley] (in absentia ;-)
..
> LGPL w/static-linking exceptions [almost-]crowd:
> isaac dunham
> gs
> 
I was thinking "LGPL is semi-bearable, non-copyleft is better, and 
static link exceptions are a good-enough compromise for now; I don't 
have any code that gives me a reason to expect you to change to non-
copyleft."
So if you want, you can put me under non-copyleft...which is ~7 vs 1 
for each of four options.
<snip>
> In summary, it looks like everyone except Luka (and perhaps aep) who
> responded would like to see at least *some* additional level of
> permissiveness to musl's license terms, and the largest single group
> is in favor of non-copyleft/"permissive" terms. As such I'll
> definitely be making some licensing changes down the line. Please give
> me some time to weigh the benefits of the different options and focus
> on the code, especially at this time while widespread deployment is
> still a ways off. 

For the record, I'd prefer a license like MIT/BSD to Apache 2.0 & co.
(where there's a patent clause)--patent clauses just don't sit so well 
with me. Not sure that it legally makes sense though!

-- 
Isaac Dunham <idunham@lavabit.com>