From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9662 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Wink Saville Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl licensing Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:16:29 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20160316201358.GN9349@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20160316211943.ed54cf246e0020872e15eb6a@frign.de> <20160316203428.GO9349@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20160317031924.GC21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20160317191640.GA32582@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1458249434 10224 80.91.229.3 (17 Mar 2016 21:17:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 21:17:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Ed Maste To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-9675-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Mar 17 22:17:06 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 1agfHz-00069V-W5 for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 22:17:04 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 10229 invoked by uid 550); 17 Mar 2016 21:17:02 -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 10195 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2016 21:17:01 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=saville-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dyKhZZ+BIAscVtuL5JkM68MKxczgh6MTFTJnV1waAfM=; b=qF2QPDXqtNPygVMbWua1UT3jrRiTZaqZC3HwO5AB6f19c1jgtlSfJEB0gpdWzOvXBp UKoEPR4EhtA8mVfZAB5FO2HHqPN+ZLjv9x+ezaSJyyeiwNSfAxphjMddy2UfIj1zA51r AEXauDk+yDsj5voXaQKaY7vPrjETwHXFpUywqTCMHaHatwjSy4ZQiXddv56cAadX77Lu HfNL6aEJxKH/gyShuGz51qTLfI7jNO7UjxDaQ0hMib8UFhjI9C+YO+zio0HQY9RgUJwA r8xGkEFCE6hGyUIvBztwLultEryhCjVQSL4/B0iyzmKBy38Kawucd4PCEPIS2wsboGYj oA9w== 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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dyKhZZ+BIAscVtuL5JkM68MKxczgh6MTFTJnV1waAfM=; b=Iwl6MDsljNIX8MuXNPZfAGGoY3oL8I0uXh0ibsIu8IrBivQUgkV59ukb9WebXDxVyn UP+2hZYHPjGnCk6Abwat8Wjp1dkngPUzBeTdyG9I8omJkNvcOaZzZoidr/pPprMngIRh KadiQAeoQBrZN4Lh98Ij929HOETNftdAUrrmp+wD7skiowaEHmHnbpN8aBeMrHX7h058 vy/ibqXm3UqMbws39fbgJT4ai162v3log1Gzt93qCqtnwFjzmGYRQTfLAh38z0fLuYrO h4PvhHwjL/vg9l7lyHqtsb2kNr9VfeVz+3EmESPdeMywQff8+v6NGcy03l7bn2QyHwfE wIgA== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIyHGcaC1CUd4+M3jyTyljvbQKq4OPD2Cq8bei+56vzkc1ZbDj/cWLA4zRiZKYwHwNKWk1lfPltukGDuw== X-Received: by 10.107.7.20 with SMTP id 20mr11928915ioh.181.1458249409470; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:16:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160317191640.GA32582@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9662 Archived-At: As a data point, in android the file copyright header (https://android.googlesource.com/platform/bionic/+/master/benchmarks/math_benchmark.cpp) is 13-15 lines long depending on how you want to count it: /* * Copyright (C) 2013 The Android Open Source Project * * Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); * you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. * You may obtain a copy of the License at * * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 * * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and * limitations under the License. */ On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Rich Felker wrote: > 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