Re: musl licensing

[u-uy74@aetey.se]

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:21:25AM -0700, Christopher Lane wrote:
> Listen, if we're asking you for too much, I get it.  This is not our
> project.  We didn't pour years into it, you did, and you have to do what
> you think is right.  If it's beyond your personal ethics to claim copyright
> over the trivial files and public headers you wrote, then that's the way it
> is.  I'll be sad, but we'll deal with it.

I appreciate your statement, but to be a little picky,
and possibly as an argument to mention to your lawyers (?) :

This is not necessarily a question of ethics, but somewhat a question
of legal safety, as well as it is for Google.

[You wrote

"Google's on the receiving end of the musl license, so it seems a "good
license" for us is one that provides clarity on what we can do with the
code.  So [...] -- one that we _can't_ be sued over."]

Rich/musl are on the other side and it certainly is illegal (somewhere)
to claim copyright on something which is not copyrightable (at that place).
The consequences may vary from place to place and from time to time.

(I understand that it is not as attractive to sue the musl project as
it would be to sue Google, where the money is, but nevertheless.
May be Rich wants to travel to a country where an "illicit" copyright
claim results in a jail term, or will happen to, in the future?)

Regards,
Rune