From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9657 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl licensing Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:57:20 -0400 Message-ID: <20160317155720.GD21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20160315221757.GA3522@openwall.com> <56E98AB1.9030309@openwall.com> <20160316234656.GQ9349@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20160317081748.GF13856@example.net> <20160317162848.0e2a44231ee8a836129370d4@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 1458230259 17226 80.91.229.3 (17 Mar 2016 15:57:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 15:57:39 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-9670-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Mar 17 16:57:37 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 1agaIq-00018h-BM for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:57:36 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 7717 invoked by uid 550); 17 Mar 2016 15:57:34 -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 7696 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2016 15:57:33 -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:9657 Archived-At: On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 08:49:39AM -0700, Hugues Bruant wrote: > > > > And don't get me wrong, I'm probably one of the biggest enemies of > > the term "intellectual property" in the open source context; for > > companies it's another matter, however, we have to play by the > > rules of the system and be clear about what we mean. > > For lawyers, calling something "public domain" doesn't mean much > > to them. So endure the pain, license it under BSD-0, so Google's > > lawyers and future peoples' lawyers are happy and we actually get > > shit done. > > > Or go the SQLite way and charge a fee to get an explicit license for > companies that are not comfortable with Public Domain > > http://sqlite.org/copyright.html I've asked that we try to stay on-topic. The topic is not relicensing or new licensing models (and certainly not unbalanced ones), only fixing the issues that are making Google's lawyers go into paranoid mode. :-) > That's probably much stronger than the musl community would be comfortable > with and also too late as it would require all past contributors to > disclaim copyright, not just Rich but it's worth noting that public domain > ideology is not incompatible with corporate use. I don't think this is entirely accurate because there's plenty of legacy PD code that made it into products with major corporate use. It would take some research to produce a list but I'm quite confident it's there. So the issue is not that "PD is incompatible with corporate use" but (from what I can tell) that corporate lawyers are weary (possibly rightfully so) of new attempts to put things in the public domain without a clear license from the people who would be copyright holders if the material is actually covered by copyright in some or all jurisdictions. I really don't want to be the "new DJB" who's holding out on actually giving proper permissions statements/license as an act of protest (against what?) and I'm hopeful that we can find a nice approach that makes both parties happy. Rich