[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110627221803.GA8535@openwall.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 02:18:03 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Weekly reports - X
Luka, Rich -
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 05:13:42PM -0400, rich felker wrote:
> I would be happy enough with LGPL, but I believe Openwall's commitment to
> GSoC included terms that all the code developed under their projects would
> be under BSD license (or equally/more permissive).
This was mentioned, but it was not a commitment. Google is OK with any
Open Source license.
The ideas page for Openwall says:
"With few exceptions (such as for changes to existing Linux kernel code,
which is under GPLv2 anyway), we require any contributed code to be made
available under a cut-down BSD license."
"By applying to work on one of the ideas with us, you signify your
acceptance of these terms and your intent to license your code
contributions accordingly."
So by applying to us under GSoC, Luka agreed to these terms. Yet I am
willing to renegotiate to LGPL in this case, even though this makes me
somewhat less willing to contribute to the project.
(I realize that it may be the other way around for some other
prospective contributors, though. Some people are more willing to
contribute when they know that copyleft prevents their code from being
used in proprietary products. In my case, I am happier to contribute
when I know there won't be an artificial barrier to reuse of my code,
especially to reuse by me. With copyleft, when I contribute to a source
file that is not solely written by me, I then have difficulty reusing my
own code contributions in differently-licensed projects.)
Anyhow, the important thing now is for Luka to start placing his cluts
code under any Open Source license.
> In any case I don't think
> the license matters at all for test case code. Anyone who wanted to improve
> it without releasing their improvements would almost surely be using it for
> internal use only (testing their implementation), not as a deployed product,
> so even if it were GPL they would not be obligated to release anything.
Right. But there might be reusable components - e.g., the framework may
be reused for tests to be bundled with another library (not a libc).
> Conversely, since it must be in source form to be useful for testing an
> implementation, even under BSD license, nobody could make a useful
> closed-source test product out of cluts - the source is essential to using
> it! Thus I think we should just put aside this bikeshed and BSD it.
Right. This sounds good to me.
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Luka Mar??eti?? <paxcoder@...il.com> wrote:
> > I'm sorry about falling behind so much. Good news though, summer brings me
> > a free window that I'll be able to dedicate to cluts. This next week is the
> > last one that I'll be busy with school until September. Next week, I'll
> > finish format.c (and perhaps rename it to numerical.c or alike) and fix
> > alloc.c(arrays instead of lists+implementing your suggestions-keep making
> > them btw. i appreciate them). Things will finally pick up afterward.
Thank you for describing your nearest plans for work on cluts.
When do you intend to start putting the tests into a framework? I think
you should have started with that by now, but we were hoping you'd have
more tests by now too...
> > About the license: I've been quiet because I like copyleft. My preferred
You should have stated so rather than remain quiet.
> > license is GPLv3+. But Solar I think said nobody is going to make their own
> > proprietary version of the library, so why not just make the license
> > permissive and let them use it however. Perhaps we could compromise and
> > choose LGPL, the musl's license. I think the reasoning behind that
> > particular license is clear.
> >
> > SUMMARY: 1) Serious work will start a week after this one.
That delay is really unfortunate, but we have to accept it I guess.
> > 2) How about LGPL as a compromise?
Please see above.
Please commit your files with some Open Source license statements on
them as soon as you reasonably can - perhaps tomorrow?
If you choose cut-down BSD, it'd look like:
/*
* Copyright (c) 2011 Your Name <email addr>
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted.
*
* There's ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, express or implied.
*/
or you may use LGPL if this makes you more comfortable and thus results
in more code from you. ;-)
Thanks,
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
