Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 23:49:38 +0100 From: Shiz <hi@...z.me> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: musl licensing > On 15 Mar 2016, at 23:41, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.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 Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (802 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.