From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9643 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Petr Hosek Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl licensing Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:50:18 +0000 Message-ID: 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: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1149c6c0194794052e3257b4 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1458168650 32453 80.91.229.3 (16 Mar 2016 22:50:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:50:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: kulakowski@chromium.org To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-9656-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Mar 16 23:50:44 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 1agKH5-0003QV-CU for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:50:43 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 26443 invoked by uid 550); 16 Mar 2016 22:50:40 -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 26425 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2016 22:50:40 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1GYBUNzJd+Nyi1/q3U/beNXfmQGeEU/X427z48f2Hvs=; b=Zw0NWGsCtTiUbw4AeuSPVjbYcfPU0n6Cyzq0N3DubPuKV2/2ZK/pvejLQITlQlTL/5 eo3JLQu2xq07m3e3JHNK9WUcJXSVaRj68JR42asW9ofxp/JRKstbdxlNpeDOmB4Lo7Iy Foygw4MPP+e4NkF9qqgdvFbZSBDaP/i5mJJq0= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1GYBUNzJd+Nyi1/q3U/beNXfmQGeEU/X427z48f2Hvs=; b=j9y4YZgndD0JZv1kZdCpnSaHiDFVOGfa63bM9DHjlTVkQrTEkw0vJe/n+JQ64fjVx6 RQzjq9Ww4vlZ//lYaKU09p9pI//oz1ZiIkkvcEJfP+hln32FP9VcTfyBEUErYcDOHiKj GYPaaS8Td8KkqMSSL/meTo20eZ6sJ9RKDf3EPMOlQ1ol4C87OUmjpcHzeJ1YFXdgrX7y zY8xkjkxLfcVwkTG4kMb867Z9/1JGv2lysgyq5DDWoNh0fQJZvtzDyysYapsy7QP6pBX jAYD7g1rB+hCNTcVr8TMUtgqDnqqmAul1LNswwLOVtfgp5yUZQoSYRUwPzaTogRFtlWS GRRw== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKw88pwPNZTKVWUYhH59xYdWBBqd4awJpeCUMEv2V/68F/9dNyRAlE1fRNGOWQ6Vl68tRgbUy8XLrpYm1+4 X-Received: by 10.55.212.130 with SMTP id s2mr9331273qks.74.1458168628051; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:50:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <56E98AB1.9030309@openwall.com> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9643 Archived-At: --001a1149c6c0194794052e3257b4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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. 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. --001a1149c6c0194794052e3257b4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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/piperma= il/llvm-dev/2015-October/thread.html#91536

=C2=A0From 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/llv= m-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<= br> to change the opinion of the community.

To clarify the CLA bit, we're not asking musl authors to sign the Goog= le 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 maintain= er, has to re-license the files which are currently in public domain, one w= ay 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 f= iles. 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.
--001a1149c6c0194794052e3257b4--