From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9649 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Christopher Lane Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl licensing Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:20:52 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20160315221757.GA3522@openwall.com> <56E98AB1.9030309@openwall.com> <56EA07C1.8040905@openwall.com> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114223fa95740f052e3547dc X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1458181275 23919 80.91.229.3 (17 Mar 2016 02:21:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 02:21:15 +0000 (UTC) Cc: kulakowski@chromium.org, Petr Hosek To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-9662-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Mar 17 03:21:08 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 1agNYh-0005kX-Mj for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 03:21:07 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 22267 invoked by uid 550); 17 Mar 2016 02:21:05 -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 22246 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2016 02:21:04 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=nPp/rpejkVibQ1aMXnLsePVFPlyWRfu0ZwcSMkE9jf8=; b=xfoZ7DigkAIu0JB/pNEYhvR+RHWGSuj8PcZLfvCE8vdIS6IYSNzHIJGfHPAdihfQej zTpjkpXi4jTj8VIYoWZEg82hwTL8sd51TjUHBt8Y4/LW48JNRmb3jasuqD7p75eFj7IT lqVo0ngI+OepCplezRF9XF+LAYzWExc+0CTwCmmgzKGI/B59vqk1fzm0s7ipYJuB8j+0 oNUPnSNgJVcIfFf4WVZbl5McKhXHV5Z/hLWT5vQZh6BnGz3TUAOc2GzbZs7oo2QNh/WU QQjEXRGzCchWyJ+ZUxDLIfL0pWy/kt90Zz5gbnl1I6GcMv2ILbWor1NWNqshR1Zj1SpA UrEg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=nPp/rpejkVibQ1aMXnLsePVFPlyWRfu0ZwcSMkE9jf8=; b=Cf411gSz0axg86r92IrBF/xInNO+WeRdujqn3p3Ievf40My2tp8jX+iq/U5AqJjw+1 xYiRjApAKOUpDzMNjOEhktZIBGx5ABFSgEL0eRgHG+0kYdonbH2nsW2CMhC8FgWuBm3t 6gZMvQTam70cYWv2wMxw6YsrFxrkrPO4ZrgbXYA9wuMKJ5Tc+7kqDocqaqeZeLniIpOn /CxvEG/9WBCqYt583fmbOaSgItE7m6gPuegsHi7ub6+0aqrdtW39OBzL3cHHoeqkAiWS ugJQzsiluadYdu2+stJd72eHiEMnuqRe5K9bAjekgWie6OL6hrHzG1eUfnrfZ6nV06Go FYyA== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKjzkgInD6HC8mywHk9v7xO4rbBbp4/m+yQChjcGngtYIQbGpIom2d2chDXMDQtj5b2OL3LaQKICSwcmA== X-Received: by 10.107.169.95 with SMTP id s92mr7124458ioe.90.1458181252672; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:20:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <56EA07C1.8040905@openwall.com> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9649 Archived-At: --001a114223fa95740f052e3547dc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Alexander Cherepanov wrote: > On 2016-03-17 01:50, Petr Hosek wrote: > >> 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. >> > > 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? Requiring a CLA is, I believe, the clearest way of preserving the musl project's ability to license and relicense the contributions however they see fit. IANAL, but I don't think it's the only option here. I think that if code was contributed to the musl project under one license, the musl project needs to get permission from the original contributor before they release it under a different license, unless the original license already grants that permission. In the case where code was contributed as public domain, and it is successfully argued that public domain isn't valid, that code is essentially unlicensed (thus no permission was given at contribution time to relicense it). > > > -- > Alexander Cherepanov > --001a114223fa95740f052e3547dc Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Alexander Cherepanov <ch3root@openwall.com> wrote:
<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">
O= n 2016-03-17 01:50, Petr Hosek wrote:
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=A0 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/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 Googl= e
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&= quot; 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<= br> 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 pref= er if musl project used musl CLA but this is not a hard requirement for you= ?

Requiring a CLA is, I believe, the cleare= st way of preserving the musl project's ability to license and relicens= e the contributions however they see fit.=C2=A0 IANAL, but I don't thin= k it's the only option here.

I think that if c= ode was contributed to the musl project under one license, the musl project= needs to get permission from the original contributor before they release = it under a different license, unless the original license already grants th= at permission.=C2=A0 In the case where code was contributed as public domai= n, and it is successfully argued that public domain isn't valid, that c= ode is essentially unlicensed (thus no permission was given at contribution= time to relicense it).
=C2=A0


--
Alexander Cherepanov

--001a114223fa95740f052e3547dc--