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. 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.