From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9690
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: u-uy74@aetey.se
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general
Subject: Re: musl licensing
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 09:31:11 +0100
Message-ID: <20160318083111.GK13856@example.net>
References: <CABBv4TYwScxbOE6YxJpK5maFoQDPFtn6VSKmh_+qA8k3Nk5=oA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160315221757.GA3522@openwall.com>
 <56E98AB1.9030309@openwall.com>
 <CABBv4TYiUzpz8Xe4K2DddNXjE1fb9UyYoX+O4Dh9j7QefU2VHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160316234656.GQ9349@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <CAKFisccCXCpcQFMwgX0JR8dRhpecfU9MAubkZx+5v9kyMjn3gA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160317081748.GF13856@example.net>
 <CAKFiscc1pLnYe5KE+jK1rQT0ZbkRNTXpSfNuEsQdHGXiHXKbNA@mail.gmail.com>
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 1458289908 20151 80.91.229.3 (18 Mar 2016 08:31:48 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:31:48 +0000 (UTC)
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Original-X-From: musl-return-9703-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Fri Mar 18 09:31:44 2016
Return-path: <musl-return-9703-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>
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 <musl-return-9703-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>)
	id 1agpop-0003y8-3Z
	for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 09:31:39 +0100
Original-Received: (qmail 5539 invoked by uid 550); 18 Mar 2016 08:31:36 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-ID: <musl.lists.openwall.com>
Original-Received: (qmail 5521 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2016 08:31:36 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fripost.org; h=
	in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:content-type
	:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:subject:from:from
	:date:date; s=20140703; t=1458289884; x=1460104285; bh=0piMsXCDo
	cM7SeagXz6BSvC6H6i3hAF0OVM1m6F2YKY=; b=cqDB5CYH6/Igwk9/GXw8msAeh
	ufKxOis9LyOe99r36lU6AncFOcv6BMEMW5D4swomSkCoMHPiSwL+kTECdMhAwwLn
	kYdJOejZX218A9psA5PgEslGGRkFZLG1vxdW0G4/DgRjPkmdd/37enYM1PcoWi36
	7S14VGZLyrbbFujxO4=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at fripost.org
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKFiscc1pLnYe5KE+jK1rQT0ZbkRNTXpSfNuEsQdHGXiHXKbNA@mail.gmail.com>
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9690
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9690>

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 08:14:04AM -0700, Christopher Lane wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2016 1:18 AM, <u-uy74@aetey.se> wrote:
> > So this is actually all about which party shall take the risks,
> > musl or Google. Isn't it?
> 
> This isn't about shoveling risk from Google to musl.  We want musl to be a
> clear and unambiguously licensable product so we can use it.  Incidentally,

To make it clear - this was not about your personal position or the
position of your group. It is about the position of Google's lawers.

> figuring out the licensing stuff here is a large distraction for our team
> (and we knew it would be), but we're willing to put in the time and effort
> because we think it's beneficial for the open source community overall, and
> because it's ethically correct. This isn't just CYA, and it's not some
> nefarious scheme.

I did not suggest that this is "nefarious", this is just a plain and
prudent business motivation.

Nothing wrong with CYA, which is the layers' role in this case,
but the other party (musl) should be prudent as well.

Regards,
Rune