From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9651 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 23:19:25 -0400 Message-ID: <20160317031924.GC21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20160316201358.GN9349@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20160316211943.ed54cf246e0020872e15eb6a@frign.de> <20160316203428.GO9349@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 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1458184789 14942 80.91.229.3 (17 Mar 2016 03:19:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 03:19:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com To: Ed Maste Original-X-From: musl-return-9664-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Mar 17 04:19:49 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 1agOTU-0000pC-Sr for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 04:19:48 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 28130 invoked by uid 550); 17 Mar 2016 03:19:46 -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 28111 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2016 03:19:45 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9651 Archived-At: On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 02:01:17AM +0000, Ed Maste wrote: > On 16 March 2016 at 20:34, Rich Felker wrote: > > > > What about authorship/copyright holders per-file? > > I have an interest in this as it applies to downstream consumers who > wish to use a portion of the software -- for example, I'd like to use > musl's memmem and strstr in FreeBSD's libc. > > I've proposed copying the text from the top-level COPYRIGHT into the > individual files themselves. (In code review at > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D2601 if you're interested.) If there were > a reference to the standalone copyright/license file it would need to > be modified anyway. Thus, from my perspective it doesn't much matter > if the original has no statement, or a one-line reference to a > separate file. What would be the minimal requirement for you not to need to modify the files? Full license text? Or would something like having the copyright holders named and "licensed under standard MIT license" or similar (possibly with a reference of some sort) suffice? I'm trying to gauge if we should try to make it so you don't need to modify the files, or if that's not a practical goal while avoiding massive comment-spam in source files. Rich