[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160315221757.GA3522@openwall.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 01:17:57 +0300
From: croco@...nwall.com
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: kulakowski@...omium.org
Subject: Re: musl licensing
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 02:59:24PM -0700, Petr Hosek wrote:
> To address both issues, authors of all files in musl that are "public
> domain" or any other non-license will have to agree with relicensing
> their work under the MIT license (or any other compatible open-source
> license).
Well, this sounds strange but may (or may not) be reasonable, as 'public
domain' is a licensing status of a work, just as well as any license. In
some countries it is not legally possible to put anything into public
domain until the copyright expires; for such countries, there's a
possibility to add a clause like "for countries where this is not legally
possible, the premission is hereby granted to anyone to do whatever (s)he
wants with this work".
However, ...
> 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? If it does, there must
be no need for signing any additional agreements, as the license IS THE
agreement; and if it doesn't, then there's, to my mind, no point of further
discussion at all.
P.S. I'm not a musl developer, but I'm very interested in the field of
copyright-related and opensouce-related law, and I believe the others on
this list might want similar clarification, too.
--
Croco
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.
