|
Message-ID: <CAPyFy2Asi988a-4+CdaDCgkOvnxbdV=wGS9kkA-LsF5RMiR6qA@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 17:42:31 -0400 From: Ed Maste <emaste@...ebsd.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: musl licensing On 17 March 2016 at 15:16, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: > > 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. My reservation is that there are tools which scan source trees for license statements, and they may not parse such a statement. Also, generally speaking I think a phrase like "the MIT license" is unambiguous and understood by everyone on this list, but that may not be true a decade from now. > 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. I grew up in the BSD world so I'm used to it -- just jump down a page after you open a source file :-) I certainly understand the desire to avoid it though. >From later in the thread, > // Copyright 2016 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved. > // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be > // found in the LICENSE file. This seems to be a good compromise to me, even though it still needs special treatment in my case of assembling software using portions of code from different sources.
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.