I understand that's a possibility, but I'd like to work with you toOn Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 08:14:04AM -0700, Christopher Lane wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2016 1:18 AM, <u-uy74@aetey.se> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 07:06:25PM -0700, Christopher Lane wrote:
> > > ... if releasing under e.g. BSD0 is OK when PD isn't
> > > valid, why isn't it OK for all situations.
> >
> > I expect that it is illegal in certain jurisdictions to claim
> > copyright on a public domain matter.
> >
> > This is not a problem for the musl user (Google) but potentially endangers
> > the developer who wrote the questionable copyright statement.
> >
> > This may explain why Google explicitly mentions "non-copyrightable" in a
> case
> > when it represents the developer party:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:31:25AM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> > > bionic actually generates its kernel interface headers from (gpl) code
> > > and each file has the comment:
> > >
> > > *** This header was automatically generated from a Linux kernel
> header
> > > *** of the same name, to make information necessary for userspace to
> > > *** call into the kernel available to libc. It contains only
> constants,
> > > *** structures, and macros generated from the original header, and
> thus,
> > > *** contains no copyrightable information.
> >
> > So this is actually all about which party shall take the risks,
> > musl or Google. Isn't it?
>
> This isn't about shoveling risk from Google to musl. We want musl to be a
> clear and unambiguously licensable product so we can use it. Incidentally,
> figuring out the licensing stuff here is a large distraction for our team
> (and we knew it would be), but we're willing to put in the time and effort
> because we think it's beneficial for the open source community overall, and
> because it's ethically correct. This isn't just CYA, and it's not some
> nefarious scheme.
>
> WRT bionic, I don't know what they're doing and I don't have any insight
> into what went into that decision. I only know what our team has been told
> about using musl.
>
> If it comes down to it, it might be possible for us to avoid using any of
> the public domain parts of musl - maybe in a fashion similar to what bionic
> did, I don't know yet. If that's good enough for our lawyers, it'll get
> our team unblocked and that's good enough I guess. Though, I'd prefer we
> solve this without such a workaround so others can benefit.
make sure that's not one you have to take, since using these parts is
actually one of the best aspects of using musl.
Rich