Re: musl licensing

[Alexander Cherepanov <ch3root@openwall.com>]

On 2016-03-17 01:50, Petr Hosek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:32 AM Alexander Cherepanov <ch3root@openwall.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> To clarify the CLA bit, we're not asking musl authors to sign the Google
> CLA. Instead, what we proposed was coming up with a CLA specifically for
> musl.

I didn't mean to imply Google CLA. Sorry if it sounded that way.

> Since someone, in this case most likely Rich as the project
> maintainer, has to re-license the files which are currently in public
> domain, one way is to have the past contributors sign a "musl project" CLA
> as a way to keep a track of the legal permission to use and distribute
> these files. However, this is a decision of the musl community and how you
> do the re-licensing is up to you, as long as you have the permission to
> re-license the files in question.

Thanks for the clarification. Do I understand correctly that you would 
prefer if musl project used musl CLA but this is not a hard requirement 
for you?

-- 
Alexander Cherepanov