Yes, and the changes were merged.
On May 28, 2016 4:50 AM, "Alba Pompeo" <albapompeo@gmail.com> wrote:

> Was a resolution reached?
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:56 PM, George Kulakowski
> <kulakowski@google.com> wrote:
> > Hi Rich,
> >
> > rofl0r <retnyg@gmx.net> is the only other contributor we found to have
> made
> > any changes to those files.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:35 PM Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:57:06PM -0700, Christopher Lane wrote:
> >> > Rich,
> >> >
> >> > Our lawyers just got back to me: looks good to us.  Thanks so much for
> >> > all
> >> > the time spent on this.
> >>
> >> At one point you said you would check the list of contributors you
> >> wanted to get clarification from. Does the list I put in the proposed
> >> patch look complete to you? I tried to include port contributors who
> >> wrote significant new stuff for these files but not anyone who just
> >> made minor patches to existing files or just copied existing files
> >> with minimal/no changes from an existing port.
> >>
> >> Rich
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > After the previous discussions on the list, I spoke with one of
> >> > > Google's lawyers on the phone. It's taken me a while to follow up
> >> > > after that because I was away at ELC last week, but I think we have
> a
> >> > > good resolution as long as there are no objections.
> >> > >
> >> > > Where I was coming from was not wanting license crap to be an
> obstacle
> >> > > to adoption of musl (after all, that's why I relicensed from LGPL to
> >> > > MIT in the first place) but also not wanting to scrub my/our belief
> >> > > that some of these files are non-copyrightable or retroactively
> claim
> >> > > ownership of something we can't own.
> >> > >
> >> > > Where they were coming from was a context of dealing with courts
> >> > > wrongly (this is my opinion I'm injecting here) deeming interfaces
> to
> >> > > be copyrightable, and having to spend ridiculously disproportionate
> >> > > effort to determine if the license actually gives them permission to
> >> > > use all the code.
> >> > >
> >> > > While I don't really agree that they actually have cause for concern
> >> > > in musl's case, I do agree that the simple fact that the current
> text
> >> > > is causing concern means there's something wrong with it. A license
> >> > > should not make you have to stop and think about whether you can
> >> > > actually use the software, and certainly shouldn't necessitate 60+
> >> > > message mailing list threads.
> >> > >
> >> > > The proposal we reached on the phone call was that I would try
> >> > > improving the previous patch to no longer make a statement about the
> >> > > copyrightability of the files in question, but to note that we
> >> > > expressed such a belief in the past. No new statement that we _do_
> >> > > hold copyright over these files is made, but the grants of
> permission
> >> > > are made unconditionally (i.e. without any conditions like "if these
> >> > > files are found to be subject to copyright...").
> >> > >
> >> > > How does this sound? See the attached patch for the specific wording
> >> > > proposed and let me know if you have constructive ideas for
> improving
> >> > > it. On our side, it's really the agreement of the contributors of
> the
> >> > > affected code (I have a draft list of them in the patch) that
> matters,
> >> > > but I'd welcome input from others too. Also, the patch itself has
> not
> >> > > been run by Google's side yet -- I'm doing this all in the open --
> so
> >> > > there still may be further feedback/input from their side.
> >> > >
> >> > > Rich
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > kthxbai
> >> > :wq
>