From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9644 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Josiah Worcester Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl licensing Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:55:28 +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=001a113cfef89448fa052e326907 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1458168954 4838 80.91.229.3 (16 Mar 2016 22:55:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:55:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: kulakowski@chromium.org To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-9657-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Mar 16 23:55:53 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 1agKM4-0007Mb-LT for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 23:55:52 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 30383 invoked by uid 550); 16 Mar 2016 22:55:50 -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 30365 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2016 22:55:49 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Gg0o1eOmp84ZVfeYTVz7JoUcm/MwP1haMsW94zf/s+c=; b=EAOqU+/ODIIrA6WcbZu4nbS9sAxF5MySpEWPZbofdqogUApCURDF2QCHox3ch7Yd07 aKpquDN/rDAJVzq2U9sdZ9gikFCbymOz9OtE1OVLQT2Qmai1YZN2SWKZ5uEVwOBJAxxj 8K8PrrcoxQuLcyo2RlWVOX9qP1nV2uxHWAQ5GxfbzJpJZmwyFegSeABa7/h9ScUIm5IN 8/4eiiVCsimgPNRQe7UXs9JQa4tk9XQ0FltLTtFBH20AgQ6vIZjSZWQcOoXeYxtU3bLZ AExFK8xX3UyUPo4UR3u4NzEHaXz8hNEH1Zfsk+ucltMN7rOh5pIxPJENAKuinq6RGGqH 313g== 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=Gg0o1eOmp84ZVfeYTVz7JoUcm/MwP1haMsW94zf/s+c=; b=dPdIK5gAxenuj0xxzuWm3/psbiFsAzndmlog2kWuzmX8p/zTKB6NlVIOoRZS3RIaqC wYRbTfmoAIqylhTVfsr/hw4jicdxwt2uxoLHVwWWff95woWvNKWSaYFYFeAiJMSmfUsY EM7hybWz2wqUoXLoxcq3bmQMZsgS15GOSmVGnyWA/5AwyL2gcw9oMpyzGLUJc6ZMbwmP BBv0OGWxppwh6mIGtCQq6pWREtpph537SmQPGsfslR3xEftCJItlBgIg9XN6PXe9gsIX pvwQzZ46dZ6smxQzkb4rhfi90y4xcG4VawxlfI6RRB2+hzNDNtMyGsn9zlVPG4VzKNUz kLSw== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKWDlFyDO92Y094VTzr5DzxQwWp6TWoFC32uCBQqztiB/zVqbJ2izwSobHR/9ikPIVg4UKSS7GLqvpp7w== X-Received: by 10.202.181.11 with SMTP id e11mr4017621oif.77.1458168938118; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:55:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9644 Archived-At: --001a113cfef89448fa052e326907 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:50 PM Petr Hosek 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) --001a113cfef89448fa052e326907 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Mar 16= , 2016 at 3:50 PM Petr Hosek <pho= sek@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 wh= ich are currently in public domain, one way is to have the past contributor= s 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 Fel= ker. (before just whole-sale doing that, though, I would recommend that we = confirm that; my general feel !=3D legal certainty, and if an actual licens= ing change does need to happen here, legal certainty is what we want)=C2=A0=
--001a113cfef89448fa052e326907--