From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/10069 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alba Pompeo Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Re: Proposed COPYRIGHT file changes to resolve "PD" issue Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 12:58:08 -0300 Message-ID: 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=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1464451105 22516 80.91.229.3 (28 May 2016 15:58:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 15:58:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com To: Christopher Lane Original-X-From: musl-return-10082-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sat May 28 17:58:25 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 1b6gd5-00066G-92 for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Sat, 28 May 2016 17:58:23 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 13574 invoked by uid 550); 28 May 2016 15:58:21 -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 13547 invoked from network); 28 May 2016 15:58:20 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=qHUNQYjoRklRr5pXcq3kDJdF3Kz/CvLMpvzkc+qUgPQ=; b=G3ApGMgAIS91SHNzz0PN6y4691CprQ173K9lfupmc5lcNmCMg+P/QMs82Q9xDOeflp PhlmKYa9mTWu4cn+3EB6K0LZAPYuwq/E4tXnhkQkknxbsR8QnB8Kkiqi3pw91vP8QuY8 baAUnaJYC/XyUks+qOV4EsLA21U1OHG95fNBgIPO3GH2motq5IwvUpHK7HRlVHgFb9I1 7XXOgX78bDEbvCARCnBZ4w5eyn4z7N3AIebf1cvWwkksvVrnNJ5JWfu1BpnoY+vHYX5v WYnBJWQ33S92VXh1yziOmoVIJVJMkP46zz6WCkXP4haW19UTL2eON3X4uGS3xfZJdPT7 Npbg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=qHUNQYjoRklRr5pXcq3kDJdF3Kz/CvLMpvzkc+qUgPQ=; b=dreVA/dnocL9MQrp7JVV9YNzjlZtyblQAPj4KRJ4C1uLYyDn75hW+SiwyDwYhzwK2l d0nvtz9O1UIHM50eAwhsh1S0Tr/oQ1MNgjThrci+ejiITlY1EbMSk92nBQ4VVREz2p3c 9WgusDaXbegI7/6CDWau7CdSHWsXaq09FG8Sv6oL9otRPZWy9y/xxa/6sfQcLnM7b/ex diaYOKWyJ3i7SKTiBmGO9574S008rgQZTO898FAIpJpX0ISQw2sBII/ird26vLWVYgen yCUMJYUZl+6n76uyZKbEsnXJF7hfCsp0nERj1qZZBZE5Xpesrjnce5LA2fuIgHRhZD/E QmBA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIfIcuhmhh3zJzbU+x9z9sar51KzRKCdSXUCXNPXnZcFucqqQDvoEvFinRfKO1Pny/+ERG8x5aX0pcnqQ== X-Received: by 10.31.15.14 with SMTP id 14mr10898713vkp.30.1464451088873; Sat, 28 May 2016 08:58:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:10069 Archived-At: Nice! Is Google using musl now? On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Christopher Lane wrote: > Yes, and the changes were merged. > > On May 28, 2016 4:50 AM, "Alba Pompeo" wrote: >> >> Was a resolution reached? >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:56 PM, George Kulakowski >> wrote: >> > Hi Rich, >> > >> > rofl0r is the only other contributor we found to have >> > made >> > any changes to those files. >> > >> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:35 PM Rich Felker wrote: >> >> >> >> 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