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 22:50:18 +0000
From: Petr Hosek <>
Subject: Re: musl licensing

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:32 AM Alexander Cherepanov <>

> 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.

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.

Content of type "text/html" skipped

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.