From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9689 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: u-uy74@aetey.se Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl licensing Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 09:01:22 +0100 Message-ID: <20160318080122.GJ13856@example.net> 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 1458288114 24837 80.91.229.3 (18 Mar 2016 08:01:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:01:54 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-9702-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Fri Mar 18 09:01:54 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 1agpM2-000633-Co for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 09:01:54 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 20057 invoked by uid 550); 18 Mar 2016 08:01:52 -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 20036 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2016 08:01:52 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fripost.org; h= in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:content-type :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:subject:from:from :date:date; s=20140703; t=1458288100; x=1460102501; bh=JENrdbzdR 5HnOOOX7WF6AUDSX20vtBOaJTEYsXlwV2s=; b=0J3lvSnlCrolD2QPszP7HeBZp 3124UdwPQeSIEswezF9HRt2zWH786g3nVX2rRQKs1rZPxmUrsyVtK/yxQAAMUeyn Z5LYbMeL6/hNwqw9kQOiaRVrbnrK87zE7TuohGXdZJ5IsdJVQ8u5yM5CikDOgXxI Oo87FE8hpFSTcQWGds= X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at fripost.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9689 Archived-At: On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 02:49:55PM -0400, Ed Maste wrote: > 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? (speaking for Dapty / Aetey) The less legalese stuff in the source files the better. A single authoritative license file for the whole package, covering all the files is best. Otherwise - am I assumed to actually have read and interpreted _every_ file to make sure I follow all the possible licenses and their variations?? (Isn't this the biggest lie of our time "I have read the license terms" ? :) The authorship is different. You do not have to "agree" to it, so do not _have_ to read it even if some licenses force you to duplicate the authorship information at distribution. Practically, while looking at the source, it is nice to to see in the files who wrote which part of the code and when, even though this is not a substitute for a modification log. Rune