From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9616 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Josiah Worcester Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl licensing Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 22:20:23 +0000 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113cfef840a1f5052e1dce4d X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1458080454 27414 80.91.229.3 (15 Mar 2016 22:20:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 22:20:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: kulakowski@chromium.org, phosek@chromium.org To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-9629-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Mar 15 23:20:50 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 1afxKZ-0007Z7-2s for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 23:20:47 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 7938 invoked by uid 550); 15 Mar 2016 22:20:45 -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 7917 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2016 22:20:44 -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=y/yjVuAwBAdMXDAipxaWJfimHJFaXXnBnrWYWj9kOzs=; b=tf8pYjI1EJpvdsT6IHfmo3//nqcbP1Mhle2npE40PdV//6i9KArj5xj45v6s1BftWR BVt/7NWHQ8Hw8K2QIgFjnJZc2deKGb3S8+8o5oHUPS8uYPMK1lPUCFKjwq/Ea1uhy1n/ ii+p7x2uJpRuxr2KNK6McmOhd+PugMNLH4mOO5sw1ymZi1ZTWLreD2LNLHcSrzJgcSjj Rd9Z70C6Mmd7gawU+Auh/j2Fy+DPKaDDM6B8uZC2rdwbmTNpHYBxSU555wp7kX/q0Ywp byZe+XaotD4+rcAm4/zSOeL2Fh8rdGMpVOPYrJugvPxtulJr06N2xmvgCUyYKkrJ02J0 Wp5A== 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=y/yjVuAwBAdMXDAipxaWJfimHJFaXXnBnrWYWj9kOzs=; b=ROlqMJJuLwgRyCJDXcAFmTGpquHsNJsA526DEmnav8f4QuwdXoU/x/DrExm+dObaJS Rq6BiF10CxQgdgGiPSRfpdraZyreb/eumJQRzqRsyxS4OZiLUMMnChRcvFUhus/Kt46o CETs6OEFUzCKIlaD4Y6kXDXIcRRiI+cARPQGdLy+W2H/xoVcnxoA4aaLRLQws+/djLzr a1Q2XbN67aWDdsw+e0j5bA0Lghara/CkrKs7JvXoATLCVj+SqGxO9UV6zszsXFNwwyEY VsneFc7+adGToBdXIjlJoFKciPOnHKUVt7nEUK3hhaIQ6JybkW2gdIrLSfKAZGfB5Rbe HIkw== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJ8B3vRnayPuo3YkP4896PqxxtFPeEXRlLQZX6dZhgjm/VHCM+LOP1vTdwDYWR5EWvGeEaAxcUSBHj0Uw== X-Received: by 10.202.181.11 with SMTP id e11mr258864oif.77.1458080432823; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 15:20:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9616 Archived-At: --001a113cfef840a1f5052e1dce4d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 3:00 PM Petr Hosek wrote: > We work on Chromium project at Google. Our team, as well as several > other teams here at Google, would like to start using musl in various > open-source projects. This includes shipping musl as a part of SDKs > and toolchains. However, after performing a standard license review, > our open-source lawyers told us that there are two obstacles to us > being able to use musl. > > The first issue is the lack of clarity around per-file licensing and > copyright attribution. The other issue is the claim that some files > (in particular, the public headers and C runtime) are in the public > domain. While this might be technically correct, it's not legally > sound and we would be legally unable to use these files without them > being placed under copyright and an open source license. The most > appropriate way of addressing both issues would be to include a > copyright notice in individual source and header files. > > Rather than working around these issues by reimplementing parts of > musl, we would like to work with the musl community to directly > address these issues. We believe that our company's interpretation of > the copyright and authorship is the same across the entire industry > and resolving these issues would benefit both musl as well as projects > which already do or plan to use musl. > > To address both issues, authors of all files in musl that are "public > domain" or any other non-license will have to agree with relicensing > their work under the MIT license (or any other compatible open-source > license). Furthermore, all past and future contributors will have to > to sign the Contributor License Agreement (CLA). Since the majority of > musl authors are present in this forum, we're reaching out to you to > ask whether this is something you would agree with and also to start > the discussion within the wider musl community. > A few comments. First, is the COPYRIGHT file insufficient for making it clear what the per-file licensing state is? If so, I suspect this could be rather readily changed (the information is around). Second, it is believed that those files that are marked as "public domain" are uncopyrightable. If this legal theory doesn't quite fit, would e.g. explicitly declaring them to be under CC0 or similar suffice? Third, is the CLA at all appropriate? This is firmly *not* a Google-owned project, and to my knowledge Google doesn't have similar requirements for any other third-party open source projects used by them, even if they have contributions (substantial or otherwise) from Google. --001a113cfef840a1f5052e1dce4d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Mar 15= , 2016 at 3:00 PM Petr Hosek <pho= sek@chromium.org> wrote:
We = work on Chromium project at Google. Our team, as well as several
other teams here at Google, would like to start using musl in various
open-source projects. This includes shipping musl as a part of SDKs
and toolchains. However, after performing a standard license review,
our open-source lawyers told us that there are two obstacles to us
being able to use musl.

The first issue is the lack of clarity around per-file licensing and
copyright attribution. The other issue is the claim that some files
(in particular, the public headers and C runtime) are in the public
domain. While this might be technically correct, it's not legally
sound and we would be legally unable to use these files without them
being placed under copyright and an open source license. The most
appropriate way of addressing both issues would be to include a
copyright notice in individual source and header files.

Rather than working around these issues by reimplementing parts of
musl, we would like to work with the musl community to directly
address these issues. We believe that our company's interpretation of the copyright and authorship is the same across the entire industry
and resolving these issues would benefit both musl as well as projects
which already do or plan to use musl.

To address both issues, authors of all files in musl that are "public<= br> domain" or any other non-license will have to agree with relicensing their work under the MIT license (or any other compatible open-source
license). Furthermore, all past and future contributors will have to
to sign the Contributor License Agreement (CLA). Since the majority of
musl authors are present in this forum, we're reaching out to you to ask whether this is something you would agree with and also to start
the discussion within the wider musl community.

A few comments. First, is the COPYRIGHT file insufficient for maki= ng it clear what the per-file licensing state is? If so, I suspect this cou= ld be rather readily changed (the information is around). Second, it is bel= ieved that those files that are marked as "public domain" are unc= opyrightable. If this legal theory doesn't quite fit, would e.g. explic= itly declaring them to be under CC0 or similar suffice? Third, is the CLA a= t all appropriate? This is firmly *not* a Google-owned project, and to my k= nowledge Google doesn't have similar requirements for any other third-p= arty open source projects used by them, even if they have contributions (su= bstantial or otherwise) from Google.
--001a113cfef840a1f5052e1dce4d--