[ccan] licensing

[Rusty Russell]

Sam Watkins <sam at nipl.net> writes:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 10:31:40AM +1000, Brad Hards wrote:
>> Some of CCAN was extracted from Samba, which has good reasons for wanting to 
>> be GPL, so those parts of CCAN are derived works. 
>
> Can we perhaps make it more clear which modules have which licenses?
>
> I would prefer totally separate repositories for GPL or other copyleft
> code, which is not free to reuse in any project, versus CC0/BSD/MIT
> code, which is free to reuse in any project; and I would support only
> the latter.
>
> I don't mind if an integrated project such as Samba is GPL,
> but I oppose the GPL for reusable libraries.

Yes, we get that you don't like the GPL.  Many people don't have a
problem with it though.

And I think the licensing is pretty clear.  It's:

1) Displayed on the web page summary for the module.
2) Documented in the _info file.
3) Contained as the LICENSE file in each module.
4) Summarized in at least one line in every .h and .c file in a module.
5) Required that dependencies don't add additional license requirements.

> The GPL is all about

Please stop this thread.

This is not the correct venue for a licensing flamewar.

Rusty.