From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9635 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: FRIGN Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl licensing Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:19:43 +0100 Message-ID: <20160316211943.ed54cf246e0020872e15eb6a@frign.de> References: <20160316201358.GN9349@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: ger.gmane.org 1458159599 19851 80.91.229.3 (16 Mar 2016 20:19:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 20:19:59 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-9648-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Mar 16 21:19:58 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 1agHvC-0006JX-Eu for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:19:58 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 19983 invoked by uid 550); 16 Mar 2016 20:19:57 -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 19962 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2016 20:19:56 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1458159585; l=1516; s=domk; d=frign.de; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Mime-Version:References: In-Reply-To:Subject:To:From:Date; bh=QCqwcHSevWzSz3fOivmk4/LsaJcgvXUh/k1V7LHQySc=; b=qar/qUxejuzVpJrdEjenStvx3EqLkVxn7CC2lYZ/vJR55KcLhvFxRBVnxkpDap4MK7h AFyheHBdnls63fWEoUiZ2oTpI5HMbf8o0dGKGEYuDR3YnmM4/u2I32u8VFrUb7gj4QPiB 3W3hHutJlMCm+nJqSC2CC3nnFXKCvmTh/Gw= X-RZG-AUTH: :KGkSVUa6cvg6QHOypuT/F//XhghIqIrrftbI6xdAzo0GYm6y2943wg== X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 In-Reply-To: <20160316201358.GN9349@brightrain.aerifal.cx> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.4.2 (GTK+ 2.24.28; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9635 Archived-At: 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. > 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. Cheers FRIGN -- FRIGN