From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9659 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ed Maste Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl licensing Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:49:55 -0400 Message-ID: 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=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1458240632 31018 80.91.229.3 (17 Mar 2016 18:50:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:50:32 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-9672-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Mar 17 19:50:31 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 1agd09-00017v-H4 for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 19:50:29 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 15644 invoked by uid 550); 17 Mar 2016 18:50:27 -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 15623 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2016 18:50:26 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=KMu0yw/Ie3XC7Kx+wP33RNrpZ9kwIap15akGby8cETs=; b=BwzySQeel6tqAabSOU2q7M7ONgXNfWaRjsMmQgVzvIHeT27J3uk5NE1Xn59nrE4FWt gAHzzRpEzS0um/OB+sN+4KndXcwLEsuKH4y1Uwj4NYOram1ODyk7emw/jz7Ty94Cicrd z8kf3WklNbBngZXKcUyUv7B49B8es9Jua64O1QscKBc63tka4Jrz4GTKtHhrx3s1QOm6 /hdq0sQSSC5f8GxnAg8rhwfAsk/wzOruxUm9R4iqtAmvOMLNzpeLgsS53Zc8hEQW4myr dPFqYTTUmW5Eq7BqSsvlSXB0TWIli8OjI6LR+pBzmxnug/s/dMtk0v7bcEbbqJMrRSS7 ucHQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=KMu0yw/Ie3XC7Kx+wP33RNrpZ9kwIap15akGby8cETs=; b=eIviCq9HdxC0YUHHnaCYaLarHwIxnJUhuRFkZ4PLtP6W96j3vMGCZmhWoZUYBcUAV8 BqXUUCxy8s88a+K7Kx6EL0W1ZJOlwDGTlrvuDLK4bGoTUl8A3aPbqtXGRO1cuFNGuzNG YnF7sDxwVpqWpNMWH17yDqomUOA+l1tbJqP3b6IydKgwZTODSGiCxcKGTSNeBZhXefdC HKSJUKLKNXuqpj+NbyPnHfx86p9F7avUevFpelgL/snMTPIP9tpp3hyydJssdWjiXyN1 RLRM4A5UTOUtT5g6gJfHfHEZpOIm1l5qQV5AIFSz+gyFa+kAtsCHlba+8mgMMTELZFvb ppvA== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJICBQtMujnGE9QikdGVZgox4GS8QaClACdUwf6hs0Pm5I1cntDju0eLY5T6QaePaRcvwEV+kyBZ95KODQ== X-Received: by 10.107.159.137 with SMTP id i131mr2809811ioe.29.1458240614834; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:50:14 -0700 (PDT) Original-Sender: carpeddiem@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20160317031924.GC21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx> X-Google-Sender-Auth: w5tHV_ekrtno5yEssAECkBNcNK8 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9659 Archived-At: 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. > 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?