Re: License survey

["gs@int3.at" <gs@int3.at>]

On 02/19/2012 08:00 AM, Isaac Dunham wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 23:12:42 -0500
> Rich Felker<dalias@aerifal.cx>  wrote:
>
>>
>> What would be your ideal license to see musl under?
> For me, the main issue is whether the libc can be used in production of any binary. I don't see non-copyleft as necessary.
>
> Sabotage is completely static, so currently, you cannot legally distribute binaries for quite a few programs.
>
> My own pick would be what FreePascal does: LGPL + static linking exception.
> But I would like a license that says you need not worry about the libc license when distributing binaries linked against it.
> As far as "official distributions" go, I would suggest that if you bother with such exceptions, you allow any distributor of your code or modified code to offer the same exception.
> ("If you did not modify the code from the version you received, and the version you received is pulicly available, you may refer the recipient to the place at which it is available instead of providing source.")
> This basically covers those distributing binaries based on a distro's modified version.
>
> Of course all exceptions may be dropped by a redistributor/fork.
>
> By the way: tre has switched to BSD license, at NetBSD's request...
i second this, it should be possible to link musl statically to your app 
and distribute it without fear of license complaints.
there are not much propietary apps i care about, but those few i use 
currently link dynamically against glibc, which forces me to have its 
.so available even if the rest of my entire system is musl-linked.
it would be preferable if those would be entirely statically linked and 
could be used on any machine running a relatively recent linux kernel.

on the other hand modifications to musl itself should be made available 
publicly; if the license enforces this that's fine.

there are a number of libraries which use LGPL with static linking 
exception, like the ogre game engine which is in widespread use even for 
closed-source games.
i don't think the GNU in the name is a problem per se; at least one 
android device i recently had my hands on shipped with a bunch of LGPL 
licensed stuff (a samsung galaxy tab, there's a page about open-source 
licenses somewhere in the system settings).