Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 09:31:11 +0100
Subject: Re: musl licensing

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 08:14:04AM -0700, Christopher Lane wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2016 1:18 AM, <> wrote:
> > So this is actually all about which party shall take the risks,
> > musl or Google. Isn't it?
> This isn't about shoveling risk from Google to musl.  We want musl to be a
> clear and unambiguously licensable product so we can use it.  Incidentally,

To make it clear - this was not about your personal position or the
position of your group. It is about the position of Google's lawers.

> figuring out the licensing stuff here is a large distraction for our team
> (and we knew it would be), but we're willing to put in the time and effort
> because we think it's beneficial for the open source community overall, and
> because it's ethically correct. This isn't just CYA, and it's not some
> nefarious scheme.

I did not suggest that this is "nefarious", this is just a plain and
prudent business motivation.

Nothing wrong with CYA, which is the layers' role in this case,
but the other party (musl) should be prudent as well.


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.