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.