|
Message-ID: <20160316203428.GO9349@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:34:28 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: musl licensing On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 09:19:43PM +0100, FRIGN wrote: > On Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:13:58 -0400 > Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: > > Hey Rich, > > > 1. Staying on topic. The topic at hand is not "relicensing" or > > anything crazy, just figuring out what's not sufficiently clear to > > Google's lawyers about our current licensing or documentation of > > copyright status, and whether there are "non-functional" (clarifying) > > changes that could be made to the source tree that would meet their > > needs and perhaps also improve the ease with which other users who > > have to deal with legal deparements can use musl. > > I think the biggest concern on behalf of Google is the code licensed > under public domain. There needs to be a decision for that. Yes, what I'm waiting for on this is whether a "conditional license" ("if this code is deemed to be covered by copyright, then we license it as BSD0/CC0/whatever") will satisfy them. This makes no difference in jurisdictions where public domain is recognized but may make them happy. I very much do not want to actually _claim_ copyright on these files, because it's my position (and I believe also Google's position vs Oracle) that pure facts of API interfaces without any additional expressive content are not copyrightable. > > 2. In-line vs out-of-line copyright/license info. The out-of-line form > > we have now has some benefits, mainly in avoiding source file clutter, > > avoiding diff hunks to update copyright years, etc. But it also has > > disadvantages such as making it easy to forget to update and arguably > > being hard to interpret. I think this is an area where it would be > > useful to discuss pros and cons and whether there are in-between > > solutions that get the best properties of both. > > As I promoted in my previous mails, I favor an out-of-line > copyright/license info with a small one-line remark in each > source file. This actually makes it easy to update years (only necessary > in the COPYRIGHT file) and makes it easier for people to find out what > license code is under. What about authorship/copyright holders per-file? Rich
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.