Re: musl licensing

[Shiz <hi@shiz.me>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1375 bytes --]


> On 15 Mar 2016, at 23:41, Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
> 
> What I think might be a reasonable solution is to explicitly state,
> preferably just in the COPYRIGHT file alongside the current statement
> that these files are in the public domain, that in the event a court
> should determine that the authors hold copyright on these files
> (despite expressing clearly that they don't want to and don't believe
> they can :), permission to use them under a BSD0 license is granted.

If this is acceptable by Google’s lawyers, this seems like a good
solution to me as well.

> I don't think anything CLA-like is acceptable to our community. All
> the evidence points to it being a huge barrier to entry for new
> contributors. There is plenty of documentation of development process
> in the git log and on the mailing list to show that our contributors
> are submitting code with the intent that it be used in musl under the
> project's license.

I agree with this. I’ve only ever contributed to a single project with
a CLA, and that was because 1) I had a huge patch backlog for it,
2) the CLA did not require me to give up my full IRL details, and
3) the CLA process was very streamlined. In general, I and I think a
lot of “casual contributors” tend to be scared off by the presence and
requirement of a CLA.

> Rich

- Shiz

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]