On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:50 PM Petr Hosek <phosek@chromium.org> wrote:

> 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.
>

Ah, that makes a lot more sense.

For what it's worth, to my knowledge any of the files that could
potentially need relicensing are the sole work of Rich Felker. (before just
whole-sale doing that, though, I would recommend that we confirm that; my
general feel != legal certainty, and if an actual licensing change does
need to happen here, legal certainty is what we want)