From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/603 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: license survey results Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:39:46 -0500 Message-ID: <20120301023946.GQ184@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20120228015557.GJ184@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120229183121.069de4ab.idunham@lavabit.com> 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 1330569640 13696 80.91.229.3 (1 Mar 2012 02:40:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 02:40:40 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-604-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Mar 01 03:40:40 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 1S2vwd-0002o2-U3 for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 03:40:40 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 22117 invoked by uid 550); 1 Mar 2012 02:40:39 -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 22109 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2012 02:40:39 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120229183121.069de4ab.idunham@lavabit.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:603 Archived-At: On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 06:31:21PM -0800, Isaac Dunham wrote: > 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. Thanks for clarifying. > > > 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! I like patent clauses in principle, but for any kind of copyleft or similar treatment to be useful, you need leverage. Copyleft, or respectively the requirement to freely license patents in derivative works, doesn't get you any code (or respectively, patents) if nobody's making derivative works... There's also the issue of existing LGPL - any license that puts further restrictions beyond the LGPL is undesirable to me because in order to enforce those restrictions we'd have to make it so new releases aren't also licensable under the LGPL. Otherwise a party that wanted to avoid the patent clause could just choose to use LGPL instead. Rich