From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9636 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl licensing Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:34:28 -0400 Message-ID: <20160316203428.GO9349@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20160316201358.GN9349@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20160316211943.ed54cf246e0020872e15eb6a@frign.de> 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: ger.gmane.org 1458160485 1929 80.91.229.3 (16 Mar 2016 20:34:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:34:45 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-9649-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Mar 16 21:34:44 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1agI9T-0000rg-34 for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:34:43 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 30216 invoked by uid 550); 16 Mar 2016 20:34:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 30192 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2016 20:34:40 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160316211943.ed54cf246e0020872e15eb6a@frign.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9636 Archived-At: On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 09:19:43PM +0100, FRIGN wrote: > On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:13:58 -0400 > Rich Felker wrote: > > Hey Rich, > > > 1. Staying on topic. The topic at hand is not "relicensing" or > > anything crazy, just figuring out what's not sufficiently clear to > > Google's lawyers about our current licensing or documentation of > > copyright status, and whether there are "non-functional" (clarifying) > > changes that could be made to the source tree that would meet their > > needs and perhaps also improve the ease with which other users who > > have to deal with legal deparements can use musl. > > I think the biggest concern on behalf of Google is the code licensed > under public domain. There needs to be a decision for that. Yes, what I'm waiting for on this is whether a "conditional license" ("if this code is deemed to be covered by copyright, then we license it as BSD0/CC0/whatever") will satisfy them. This makes no difference in jurisdictions where public domain is recognized but may make them happy. I very much do not want to actually _claim_ copyright on these files, because it's my position (and I believe also Google's position vs Oracle) that pure facts of API interfaces without any additional expressive content are not copyrightable. > > 2. In-line vs out-of-line copyright/license info. The out-of-line form > > we have now has some benefits, mainly in avoiding source file clutter, > > avoiding diff hunks to update copyright years, etc. But it also has > > disadvantages such as making it easy to forget to update and arguably > > being hard to interpret. I think this is an area where it would be > > useful to discuss pros and cons and whether there are in-between > > solutions that get the best properties of both. > > As I promoted in my previous mails, I favor an out-of-line > copyright/license info with a small one-line remark in each > source file. This actually makes it easy to update years (only necessary > in the COPYRIGHT file) and makes it easier for people to find out what > license code is under. What about authorship/copyright holders per-file? Rich