[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120219121750.GA15739@openwall.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:17:50 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: License survey
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 11:12:42PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> Which is more important, copyleft or widespread usage of musl?
The latter, unless you intend to make money selling commercial licenses
(this would be a reason to have the publicly released musl copylefted).
> What would be your ideal license to see musl under?
Cut-down BSD, to the point of being copyright-only with no restrictions
at all - but using the same wording as the BSD licenses do for the
remaining portion of it. That is:
<Copyright statements here>
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted.
<Warranty disclaimer here>
To me, this looks more obviously compatible with other Open Source
licenses than the usual N-clause BSD licenses are. (Disclaimer: I am
not a lawyer.)
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.
