From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9660 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 15:16:40 -0400 Message-ID: <20160317191640.GA32582@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20160316201358.GN9349@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20160316211943.ed54cf246e0020872e15eb6a@frign.de> <20160316203428.GO9349@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20160317031924.GC21636@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 1458242224 24764 80.91.229.3 (17 Mar 2016 19:17:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 19:17:04 +0000 (UTC) Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com To: Ed Maste Original-X-From: musl-return-9673-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Mar 17 20:17:02 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 1agdPo-00037X-DQ for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:17:00 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 32628 invoked by uid 550); 17 Mar 2016 19:16:58 -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 32607 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2016 19:16:57 -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:9660 Archived-At: On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 02:49:55PM -0400, Ed Maste wrote: > On 16 March 2016 at 23:19, Rich Felker wrote: > > > > 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 think it depends on context. For example, If we planned to import > musl into our contrib/ tree and build it as a standalone entity the > current form (with no individual file statements) would be just fine. > > But in this case, where I hope to combine a few files into our > existing libc I'll want the license text in the file as it's > consistent with the rest of our libc, and it avoids adding a > MIT-LICENSE.txt, MUSL-LICENSE.txt or similar file to the tree. Indeed, I was thinking more along the lines of whether we're to the point that standard licenses could be referenced by name/identifier without an in-tree copy. > > 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. > > I don't think it's a practical goal to entirely avoid needing to > modify files; I had to do so for a minor header variations or some > such anyhow. From my perspective, my order of preference is full > authorship + license, authorship + license statement, status quo. I do > understand wanting to avoid the full license text though. Do other > potential downstream consumers of musl have a preference? I think our community tends to dislike files which are 20+ lines of copyright/license comments followed by <10 lines of code. Whether there are situations where the file size makes a practical difference, I don't know. One observation: on a standard-size terminal it's likely you wouldn't seen _any_ code on the first page with a full-license comment header. Rich