From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9681 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Christopher Lane Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl licensing Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:55:06 -0700 Message-ID: References: <201603172356.11220.sweet_f_a@gmx.de> <10746.1458256075@CATHET.us> <20160317231923.GA1641@wopr.sciops.net> <98535.1458257508@CATHET.us> <20160318033038.GB1641@wopr.sciops.net> <20160318034132.GK21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013a11026bd85f052e4ab68a X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1458273321 8757 80.91.229.3 (18 Mar 2016 03:55:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 03:55:21 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-9694-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Fri Mar 18 04:55:20 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 1aglVQ-0004dk-HD for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 04:55:20 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 28307 invoked by uid 550); 18 Mar 2016 03:55:19 -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 28286 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2016 03:55:18 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=URhFhC8fd83EssmjwNY1lAIFeisNq371UuxraqyHdo0=; b=DTveAnzcMzsloZVYHdeB7GzTB632pCY4QvJzfh/lVctQIS8Jyybw4cWrEWymk4AA8H gXJ9ULtsVpuMmO98aZs7S6yTdZdrdTFL3KC1DGtDLkAXr9yGVxmlAyQQT6bxPXaPPP68 dkoB52Rdi02Ech0UiRDCp4cCLEz0ejPdxrHRkrD6jmUgYICCAuHLmAcrQBMeI1K4xxdq 6+RaU5D156kr7bvd+JrKhaCagQuLPZkyZ+zuSaquInYFQCjWW0qu6aYN8qzVJLdjUoI3 kzI/IuPRZ5Bj/OvK/lSoKA0vcropztWXNVBXkxYaVoXJzCwotjVcLmGgzA7hz0GdUOQF 73Bg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to; bh=URhFhC8fd83EssmjwNY1lAIFeisNq371UuxraqyHdo0=; b=iPoru6k2Yj5b/+uClKPf4tgWYw0dv4c40QYMWucFGMT9Z5fmSu8qTuT5KiX9bl8oz/ D/nIV7YTgQkvjwUuR49F6ElgysU6Y2ygOfp//AuJqGQLJr4egVZyHElQVaUL2Xu6t19S zX86fSbdUJseACtrAnoxRUv8cnHMBOIRxzD7otb0wJl2VlsbaCGBtLUUT8tZrSebZrxN bBwiJpkE+XBtSIZJ0pOy8d/G+dY54JD3EUgeSvg+Nt0WejmD6pnILWipJZr6FK3Xosqx 7jUcEehIgm6FohZTTHg16lF5AEJuXhUokdKBzmBPXoOVCT6vM4dS7xq2lAYgwNZa6TzA Ah4A== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKkLRS7XOHdX0iCRT8kAkN5xSf0rDbEuwAOt2H/2SpyJFWoqOFhA0Aijr0EhEsH49N7Iv6gyDAkYKJujA== X-Received: by 10.50.79.198 with SMTP id l6mr33567741igx.30.1458273306529; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 20:55:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160318034132.GK21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9681 Archived-At: --089e013a11026bd85f052e4ab68a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mar 17, 2016 8:41 PM, "Rich Felker" wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:30:38PM -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 05:31:48PM -0600, Anthony J. Bentley wrote: > > > > > > Post-Berne no copyright statement is needed at all. Marking license > > > terms, authors and dates in individual files is strictly a convenience > > > factor for those using or reading the code. > > > > > > > Yes. However, musl has had more than one person express a desire for > > per-file copyright notifications. None of these people have expressed > > interest in needlessly including a year. With this information, we can > > ask if > > > > /* Copyright the musl authors. Available under a ___-style license, which > > can be found at http://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/COPYRIGHT */ > > > > would meet their needs. > > Generally I don't think people like (and I don't like) URL references > to licenses because there's no guarantee that they don't change or > linkrot. Referencing the copy in the top-level source tree COPYRIGHT > file avoids that but obviously doesn't meet the needs of someone > including it in another tree. > > If Google's lawyers are happy without adding per-file notices (which I > haven't seen them asking for in any of the clarifying follow-up > emails; correct me if I'm wrong) then I think we should treat this as > a separate issue aside from trying to resolve the current license > concerns they have, and follow up on it later. > > Rich I asked our lawyers about per-file headers. Yes, it's clearer if the files have headers. It's especially easier to copy on a per-file basis for projects that need to do that. But the feedback I got was that the text in the COPYRIGHT file that says basically "anything without a header has the MIT license above" is clear enough for us to use musl. Having per-file headers is not, IIUC a blocker for us. --089e013a11026bd85f052e4ab68a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mar 17, 2016 8:41 PM, "Rich Felker" <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:30:38PM -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 05:31:48PM -0600, Anthony J. Bentley wrot= e:
> > >
> > > Post-Berne no copyright statement is needed at all. Marking = license
> > > terms, authors and dates in individual files is strictly a c= onvenience
> > > factor for those using or reading the code.
> > >
> >
> > Yes.=C2=A0 However, musl has had more than one person express a d= esire for
> > per-file copyright notifications.=C2=A0 None of these people have= expressed
> > interest in needlessly including a year.=C2=A0 With this informat= ion, we can
> > ask if
> >
> > /* Copyright the musl authors.=C2=A0 Available under a ___-style = license, which
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 can be found at http://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/COPYRIGHT= */
> >
> > would meet their needs.
>
> Generally I don't think people like (and I don't like) URL ref= erences
> to licenses because there's no guarantee that they don't chang= e or
> linkrot. Referencing the copy in the top-level source tree COPYRIGHT > file avoids that but obviously doesn't meet the needs of someone > including it in another tree.
>
> If Google's lawyers are happy without adding per-file notices (whi= ch I
> haven't seen them asking for in any of the clarifying follow-up > emails; correct me if I'm wrong) then I think we should treat this= as
> a separate issue aside from trying to resolve the current license
> concerns they have, and follow up on it later.
>
> Rich

I asked our lawyers about per-file headers. Yes, it's cl= earer if the files have headers.=C2=A0 It's especially easier to copy o= n a per-file basis for projects that need to do that.=C2=A0 But the feedbac= k I got was that the text in the COPYRIGHT file that says basically "a= nything without a header has the MIT license above" is clear enough fo= r us to use musl.=C2=A0 Having per-file headers is not, IIUC a blocker for = us.

--089e013a11026bd85f052e4ab68a--