From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9646 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alexander Cherepanov Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl licensing Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 04:26:25 +0300 Message-ID: <56EA07C1.8040905@openwall.com> References: <20160315221757.GA3522@openwall.com> <56E98AB1.9030309@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 1458178002 10373 80.91.229.3 (17 Mar 2016 01:26:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 01:26:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: kulakowski@chromium.org, Petr Hosek To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-9659-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Mar 17 02:26:41 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 1agMi0-0005P2-V6 for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 02:26:41 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 14126 invoked by uid 550); 17 Mar 2016 01:26:37 -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 14099 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2016 01:26:37 -0000 X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 In-Reply-To: Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9646 Archived-At: On 2016-03-17 01:50, Petr Hosek wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:32 AM Alexander Cherepanov > 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