From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/10067 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 08:50:34 -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 1464436253 3558 80.91.229.3 (28 May 2016 11:50:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 11:50:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Christopher Lane To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-10080-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sat May 28 13:50:52 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 1b6clW-0000Qe-TH for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Sat, 28 May 2016 13:50:51 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 1470 invoked by uid 550); 28 May 2016 11:50:47 -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 1449 invoked from network); 28 May 2016 11:50:46 -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=HdGpBCQOMb0OuogkArVAv81sn8mNqMASdczTczGqBBI=; b=Q8VdhcKVkPagr7BFqHeHIVXgKBVdbgtk/ugGtARqx36IsLnga9ykvDFM8N//SbODGz R+MTQY8SYIbLya14QN9QpO5oHmFgqjIHA/yfWIqnybEMg/tUzjZaW9hZ63mVIQSmsZJo dM7Yi7BmgHRSx4riUpaF/GBYCuqobAKWgKd33zTnmgjDexoUaCQpYmZa7oZfGNHp7EnX DmNoXke5ev0FRpV3lymdBD857exl91aGOm43did/+tGd2viN3qW0Q7rHmAMG58T8k+5z /pbBhX1bpqvPHoabPIk7AM0ksFfIZvKeLv+qkq9ZNEhFLMNOCgjw5PVsg1BTlLDOYGUo CBJA== 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=HdGpBCQOMb0OuogkArVAv81sn8mNqMASdczTczGqBBI=; b=fQA7yX/YhOkEivCXaq2KJCISECniIy6tvJuQB/NJ8zkfn+0p3nmEs3VPBwFPLZhAx5 j8wldjh8dq/NJ9BgPFqE8Zq2bd9Idi4ohAmyVT0++Ma+uQHvmHv7UYc+SRNl8bkNRy7/ dVqF/lwtS2dERbcgThRHyXqCF+WTklP3WnH3958bCGX8b9pjf4RRDtYAadZcfV5rR22p 9LKXOis3LhLBmRi6aEQq7NtoybsqU+h2yVd5akwCXavL4mMz/i1McuZeipkHl5E3BysC EJsQAIE7QrHfajA6DDGLN0kD24nfmCFMJLJnNQ1GCh208pUlxH+4Fdi9y4D7bne3HP4I udCw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJ2lPPlGDtTrhlRBqRpwrN6M6KYACvU/zMK8++SfWYTAFHAsV7tyq3WNGwXzD85nv/kdsZxsnJ8P3tAKg== X-Received: by 10.159.35.85 with SMTP id 79mr11019471uae.118.1464436234457; Sat, 28 May 2016 04:50:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:10067 Archived-At: 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