Re: musl licensing

[Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net>]

* FRIGN <dev@frign.de> [2016-03-16 15:01:05 +0100]:
> You for instance have done the following exception
> :: The BSD PRNG implementation (src/prng/random.c) and XSI search API
> :: (src/search/*.c) functions are Copyright © 2011 Szabolcs Nagy and
> :: licensed under following terms: "Permission to use, copy, modify,
> :: and/or distribute this code for any purpose with or without fee is
> :: hereby granted. There is no warranty."
> (taken from COPYRIGHT)
> 

that's a historical accident.

(you can look it up in the mailing list archive, it happened
before musl chose the mit license and mostly had code written
by Rich so he asked under what terms he could use my changes
so i wrote something that ended up in COPYRIGHT.)

it can be cleaned up if it is a concern.

> > i kept the copyright notices of src/math/* files because there are
> > too many variations to describe them all in a separate file, but i
> > have to note that they do not represent the real authors and year of
> > authorship.. which is the usual case for copyright notices..
> > (some try to clarify the situation by assigning all the copyright
> > to one entity, but that makes it worse: that's clearly not about the
> > rights of an author, but pure coercive monopoly over ideas.)
> 
> :: Much of the math library code (src/math/* and src/complex/*) is
> :: Copyright (...)
> :: and labelled as such in comments in the individual source files. All
> :: have been licensed under extremely permissive terms.
> 
> Now, when I take a look at src/math/lrintf.c for instance, there is
> no copyright notice. And "extremely permissive terms" is vague at best.

because it was written for musl from scratch.
see git log for details.

"extremely permissive terms" is as precise as you can get
with fdlibm (and netlib.org stuff in general).