Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 09:31:11 +0100 From: u-uy74@...ey.se To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: musl licensing On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 08:14:04AM -0700, Christopher Lane wrote: > On Mar 17, 2016 1:18 AM, <u-uy74@...ey.se> 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. Regards, Rune
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.