From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9907 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Sebastian Gottschall Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Re: Proposed COPYRIGHT file changes to resolve "PD" issue Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:09:48 +0200 Message-ID: <570FA4AC.4000005@dd-wrt.com> References: <20160411041445.GS21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20160413203511.GW21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1460642988 24915 80.91.229.3 (14 Apr 2016 14:09:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 14:09:48 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-9920-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Apr 14 16:09:41 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aqhxk-0000XY-Ba for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:09:40 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 5351 invoked by uid 550); 14 Apr 2016 14:09:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 5329 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2016 14:09:37 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dd-wrt.com; s=mikd; h=Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:To; bh=MVb45Ka+UDSnb+nbVoCGWCEywLByOssrmYi1qJHKrgM=; b=h0QLHsI9vdapzAbYihVxw7i9jkQyuBeSl2mxb3xzUXxAKts47lP5P+mtY2IiOBijQKER7HTIaqsqA4mNjmdzR8qKpmZKrdvOG4wiamcy1ePdHoPJCPK4hra9do6VZxJam7OeG0qVGxXQDQgA6mP2KOlYEmTUQh6YKWLVbJzrY0Q=; User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2 In-Reply-To: <20160413203511.GW21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 79.204.133.64 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: s.gottschall@dd-wrt.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.9 (2007-02-13) on webmail.newmedia-net.de X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=4.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL,RATWARE_GECKO_BUILD autolearn=no version=3.1.9, No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 26 May 2011 15:22:33 +0200) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on webmail.newmedia-net.de) X-NMN-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-NMN-MailScanner-ID: 1aqhxU-0002tq-FK X-NMN-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-NMN-MailScanner-From: s.gottschall@dd-wrt.com X-Received: from [79.204.133.64] (helo=[172.29.0.169]) by webmail.newmedia-net.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1aqhxU-0002tq-FK for musl@lists.openwall.com; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:09:24 +0200 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9907 Archived-At: any news? Am 13.04.2016 um 22:35 schrieb Rich Felker: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:57:06PM -0700, Christopher Lane wrote: >> Rich, >> >> Our lawyers just got back to me: looks good to us. Thanks so much for all >> the time spent on this. > At one point you said you would check the list of contributors you > wanted to get clarification from. Does the list I put in the proposed > patch look complete to you? I tried to include port contributors who > wrote significant new stuff for these files but not anyone who just > made minor patches to existing files or just copied existing files > with minimal/no changes from an existing port. > > Rich > > >> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Rich Felker wrote: >> >>> After the previous discussions on the list, I spoke with one of >>> Google's lawyers on the phone. It's taken me a while to follow up >>> after that because I was away at ELC last week, but I think we have a >>> good resolution as long as there are no objections. >>> >>> Where I was coming from was not wanting license crap to be an obstacle >>> to adoption of musl (after all, that's why I relicensed from LGPL to >>> MIT in the first place) but also not wanting to scrub my/our belief >>> that some of these files are non-copyrightable or retroactively claim >>> ownership of something we can't own. >>> >>> Where they were coming from was a context of dealing with courts >>> wrongly (this is my opinion I'm injecting here) deeming interfaces to >>> be copyrightable, and having to spend ridiculously disproportionate >>> effort to determine if the license actually gives them permission to >>> use all the code. >>> >>> While I don't really agree that they actually have cause for concern >>> in musl's case, I do agree that the simple fact that the current text >>> is causing concern means there's something wrong with it. A license >>> should not make you have to stop and think about whether you can >>> actually use the software, and certainly shouldn't necessitate 60+ >>> message mailing list threads. >>> >>> The proposal we reached on the phone call was that I would try >>> improving the previous patch to no longer make a statement about the >>> copyrightability of the files in question, but to note that we >>> expressed such a belief in the past. No new statement that we _do_ >>> hold copyright over these files is made, but the grants of permission >>> are made unconditionally (i.e. without any conditions like "if these >>> files are found to be subject to copyright..."). >>> >>> How does this sound? See the attached patch for the specific wording >>> proposed and let me know if you have constructive ideas for improving >>> it. On our side, it's really the agreement of the contributors of the >>> affected code (I have a draft list of them in the patch) that matters, >>> but I'd welcome input from others too. Also, the patch itself has not >>> been run by Google's side yet -- I'm doing this all in the open -- so >>> there still may be further feedback/input from their side. >>> >>> Rich >>> >> >> >> -- >> kthxbai >> :wq