From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/602 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Isaac Dunham Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: license survey results Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:31:21 -0800 Message-ID: <20120229183121.069de4ab.idunham@lavabit.com> References: <20120228015557.GJ184@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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1330569124 10940 80.91.229.3 (1 Mar 2012 02:32:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 02:32:04 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-603-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Mar 01 03:32:01 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 1S2voD-00066s-FO for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 03:31:57 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 15535 invoked by uid 550); 1 Mar 2012 02:31:56 -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 15527 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2012 02:31:55 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=lavabit; d=lavabit.com; b=rOugFz3BM48MBIbOiN+EtfwkvVm+MIkSFgGRuYFGMTIKx2ELU04T0cX8xkA8ecGWBQZpOh8HReTodDLaDAe4jq3PYnSxYasoJVaLbRW9+MygFKESz5kkWidoK0yjO2FmwS4to1T214PSDDPamrjh4ZBoBsZGZc+CkonfP2yrh10=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References:X-Mailer:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; In-Reply-To: <20120228015557.GJ184@brightrain.aerifal.cx> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.20.1; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:602 Archived-At: On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:55:57 -0500 Rich Felker wrote: > 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. > 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