From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9614 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: croco@openwall.com Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl licensing Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 01:17:57 +0300 Message-ID: <20160315221757.GA3522@openwall.com> References: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1458080296 25078 80.91.229.3 (15 Mar 2016 22:18:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 22:18:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: kulakowski@chromium.org To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-9627-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Mar 15 23:18:14 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1afxI6-0005s9-61 for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 23:18:14 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 5549 invoked by uid 550); 15 Mar 2016 22:18:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 5528 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2016 22:18:11 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9614 Archived-At: On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 02:59:24PM -0700, Petr Hosek wrote: > To address both issues, authors of all files in musl that are "public > domain" or any other non-license will have to agree with relicensing > their work under the MIT license (or any other compatible open-source > license). Well, this sounds strange but may (or may not) be reasonable, as 'public domain' is a licensing status of a work, just as well as any license. In some countries it is not legally possible to put anything into public domain until the copyright expires; for such countries, there's a possibility to add a clause like "for countries where this is not legally possible, the premission is hereby granted to anyone to do whatever (s)he wants with this work". However, ... > Furthermore, all past and future contributors will have to > to sign the Contributor License Agreement (CLA). Please clarify, what does THIS have to do with any licensing problems? Does Google recognize open source licenses or not? If it does, there must be no need for signing any additional agreements, as the license IS THE agreement; and if it doesn't, then there's, to my mind, no point of further discussion at all. P.S. I'm not a musl developer, but I'm very interested in the field of copyright-related and opensouce-related law, and I believe the others on this list might want similar clarification, too. -- Croco