[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56E98AB1.9030309@openwall.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:32:49 +0300
From: Alexander Cherepanov <ch3root@...nwall.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: kulakowski@...omium.org, Petr Hosek <phosek@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: musl licensing
On 03/16/2016 01:17 AM, croco@...nwall.com 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:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/thread.html#91536
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
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091752.html
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.
