Licensing Policy: other build files should follow cmake rule

[Albert Astals Cid]

El dilluns, 2 de juny del 2025, a les 12:39:49 (Hora d’estiu d’Europa 
central), Harald Sitter va escriure:
> Ahoy ahoy
> 
> I am proposing that we clarify the licensing policy a bit by adding a
> 
> new point following cmake:
> > #. Build-related files (build scripts, makefiles, build systems other than
> > cmake, …) should follow the cmake licensing rule. Use a permissive
> > license, so code can easily be shared.
> This is mostly to codify the intent behind the cmake rule and more
> broadly cover other build systems: we want to have a permissive
> license so code can be easily picked into other projects but at the
> same time leave enough wiggle room so we can use other licenses here
> e.g. if in a build system ecosystem the license of choice is MIT then
> we still want to be free to use MIT instead.
> 
> I also considered changing around the cmake rule but I think we
> benefit from its assertiveness and clearity, with cmake being the
> dominant build system.

I don't particularly agree that "Use a permissive license" is "clear".

Where do i find a list of such licenses?

I would really welcome a list we accept even if it's very long.

Cheers,
  Albert

P.S: I guess this would cover my Apache 2 for oss-fuzz build scripts request?


> Any objections?

> 
> HS