CLA.md

@@ -10,17 +10,27 @@ This will also permit me to relicense this project for those who need it.
 
 If you don't sign the CLA, don't send the patch. I can not accept it. I will ask if I can accept bsd-licensed patches, but chances are I can't.
 
+## Who gets the code under which license?
+
+* (L)GPL3 for everyone
+* as needed for other people.
+
+Each case will be publicly listed in this page, along with the (new) licenses.
+
+*No licenses other than (L)GPL3 have been granted yet.*
+
 ## Why do you need to relicense the code?
 
 libRaptorQ and the Fenrir protocol projects will always remain GPL'd software, but that gives me some limitations.
 
 
-Right now libRaptorQ and libFenrir are **LGPL3**. Dual licensing is needed for the _Apple and windows store_ environments, since they need to modify the binary to add some cryptographic signing (or so I heard), or maybe just because they don't like it. LGPL lets them use the library, but it doesn't let them modify it to add their (harmless) signing. The LGPL also lets you statically link the library to a program only if you distribute the un-linked object files. I do like the philosophy behind it, but nobody seems to be able to do this easily, everybody is scared to try, and the result is that nobody does it.
+Right now libRaptorQ and libFenrir are **LGPL3**. Dual licensing is needed for the _Apple and windows store_ environments.
+Windows store seems to explicitly disallow licenses with requirements on redistribution and modifications (=> *GPL), and the Apple apps are statically linked (which has some strict requirements no one ever cares about in the lgpl), plus *gpl and apple store are incompatible.
+The LGPL lets you statically link the library to a program only if you distribute the un-linked object files. I do like the philosophy behind it, but nobody seems to be able to do this easily, everybody is scared to try, and the result is that nobody does it.
 
-There are some projects that say they are "_LGPL with static linking exception_", but the GPL clearly states that the license can not be modified, and that is
-a clear enough modification.
+There are some projects that say they are "_LGPL with static linking exception_", but the (L)GPL clearly states that the license can not be modified, and that is a clear enough modification.
 
-Even with these problems, I still want to take advantage of the LGPL, and want them to be able to use this, so I'm thinking about a license which will not permit non-lgpl3+ source-code modifications, that will not permit others to close source this project, but still let them use it for statically linked libraries, and for any signing they need.  
+Even with these problems, I still want to take advantage of the LGPL, and want them to be able to use these projects in the various stores, so I'm thinking about a license which will not permit non-lgpl3+ source-code modifications, that will not permit others to close source this project, but still let them use it for statically linked libraries, and for any signing they need.  
 That is a lot of work, so for know I opted for double-licensing.
 
 Also, in the future the situation might change, better licenses might come out, the (L)GPL3 might prove insufficient. You might not like future GPL licenses.
@@ -31,7 +41,7 @@ And You won't like being stuck with the wrong license then.
 
 Because those licenses still lets other people fork-and-close the project, which duplicates the effort needed to keep the codebase clean and secure for everybody.
 
-I want an LGPL3 where statically-linking is possible, and where you can add data to the binary only as long as it does not interfere in any way with the library, and only if the whole library can be verified not to have extra or different changes (deterministic builds)
+I want an LGPL3 where statically-linking is possible, and only if the whole library can be verified not to have extra or different changes (deterministic builds)
 
 If I just put this in a BSD-style license, everyone can take it, modify it a bit and claim it is the same, even with a backdoor inside it. DO. NOT. WANT.