Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:32:49 +0300
From: Alexander Cherepanov <>
Cc:, Petr Hosek <>
Subject: Re: musl licensing

On 03/16/2016 01:17 AM, wrote:
>> Furthermore, all past and future contributors will have to
>> to sign the Contributor License Agreement (CLA).
> Please clarify, what does THIS have to do with any licensing problems?
> Does Google recognize open source licenses or not?

Yeah, this is a crucial question IMHO. There was a similar discussion 
about LLVM licensing recently:

 From this thread I gathered that:
1) Google is quite serious about CLAs;
2) Google has ideas about copyright/licensing/etc which contradict 
beliefs held widely in the community;
3) Google is not inclined to explain the situation to the community, 
judging by

Given its past legal troubles, Google has enough stimuli to study the 
topic very carefully and it could be right. But could be wrong as well. 
Anyway, I don't think that just saying that CLAs are required is going 
to change the opinion of the community.

Alexander Cherepanov

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.