From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9633 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alexander Cherepanov Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl licensing Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:32:49 +0300 Message-ID: <56E98AB1.9030309@openwall.com> References: <20160315221757.GA3522@openwall.com> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1458145986 17146 80.91.229.3 (16 Mar 2016 16:33:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 16:33:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: kulakowski@chromium.org, Petr Hosek To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-9646-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Mar 16 17:33:06 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 1agENc-000241-Lo for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:33:04 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 7343 invoked by uid 550); 16 Mar 2016 16:33:02 -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 7325 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2016 16:33:02 -0000 X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 In-Reply-To: <20160315221757.GA3522@openwall.com> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9633 Archived-At: On 03/16/2016 01:17 AM, croco@openwall.com wrote: >> 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? Yeah, this is a crucial question IMHO. There was a similar discussion about LLVM licensing recently: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/thread.html#91536 From this thread I gathered that: 1) Google is quite serious about CLAs; 2) Google has ideas about copyright/licensing/etc which contradict beliefs held widely in the community; 3) Google is not inclined to explain the situation to the community, judging by http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091752.html Given its past legal troubles, Google has enough stimuli to study the topic very carefully and it could be right. But could be wrong as well. Anyway, I don't think that just saying that CLAs are required is going to change the opinion of the community. -- Alexander Cherepanov