From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9654 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Christopher Lane Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl licensing Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:14:04 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20160315221757.GA3522@openwall.com> <56E98AB1.9030309@openwall.com> <20160316234656.GQ9349@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20160317081748.GF13856@example.net> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114223fac4bcdd052e401433 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1458227673 3538 80.91.229.3 (17 Mar 2016 15:14:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 15:14:33 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-9667-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Mar 17 16:14:27 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 1agZd4-00021b-TO for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:14:27 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 16071 invoked by uid 550); 17 Mar 2016 15:14:17 -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 16053 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2016 15:14:16 -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; bh=mMf6bWK5W+2AJWBIIRQzfg5Dqi/vVgu27Z7zX7dV8bQ=; b=bc4iidnA+mz1RaZZeNgHRJlGVuR+bXLU9whQTNH5MaK7OZmEVEZlmDuraq/j5gpBpS O+0S05/7V7Dh7htUhF5sVrvhIFijGyz0K/D4jdenS2pFo/MeTBEd5Q02pC2IyToAjaa8 JJPLxSj+NjE43OA/Zy5GgroQxnS1LWA7OrxpRJVg3200xKD5HDQYLseh/p6dOSMMoMYn 2Pj1gpuJsjYt5cHxu7zVd77DtAVaTTxYK58hlk4sKik4+vv5gv47KHX5E7YDS20aSO9U MBnJNWNn1xxJtw+fICFKqoz46+MkwlCrvFe2R9WrZssJ0aUmlZxUNlZ8A4EwctQdeJdn yXxw== 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; bh=mMf6bWK5W+2AJWBIIRQzfg5Dqi/vVgu27Z7zX7dV8bQ=; b=RueJ0xXNGxzgjvAGtDVSmES/lfcgUEx8c0n5PnUKqODOD9zXEIBydueFKOy0G2VSpd 450CU0eqdypDSEo9Du9p14r+YFapAmoxBgT+lV3yKnTjV7kG203kiLXqOg2DQRL3lIwU 4en3l62wQkeX/EKV5iDWWfB58dHcnR5cOEhDTGgw61FqTM2CXVwgtQTAFnKb+PY3qilg 0OJdqWWut5GoQ1tGS7REqq/CtCJ5fm+Ily0FW88qqAh0oiIHG4aOE4I/F9JWMaGv2U7M pPP8Tb8psn2Z3EMKeBgolKw86cwaWrAkAkmvavCTYJpbSuth2JZLabU8EvrXQrvPQ7gR hIng== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJaNp1ZG/He2Gjz0+OheXWjvfe7DI+FfFuXAgHS9jTVSJFTS6DkVBj9ViqOLX4s0ABM49aoo/oea4YsnA== X-Received: by 10.107.169.95 with SMTP id s92mr10426410ioe.90.1458227644774; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:14:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160317081748.GF13856@example.net> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9654 Archived-At: --001a114223fac4bcdd052e401433 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mar 17, 2016 1:18 AM, wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 07:06:25PM -0700, Christopher Lane wrote: > > ... if releasing under e.g. BSD0 is OK when PD isn't > > valid, why isn't it OK for all situations. > > I expect that it is illegal in certain jurisdictions to claim > copyright on a public domain matter. > > This is not a problem for the musl user (Google) but potentially endangers > the developer who wrote the questionable copyright statement. > > This may explain why Google explicitly mentions "non-copyrightable" in a case > when it represents the developer party: > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:31:25AM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > bionic actually generates its kernel interface headers from (gpl) code > > and each file has the comment: > > > > *** This header was automatically generated from a Linux kernel header > > *** of the same name, to make information necessary for userspace to > > *** call into the kernel available to libc. It contains only constants, > > *** structures, and macros generated from the original header, and thus, > > *** contains no copyrightable information. > > So this is actually all about which party shall take the risks, > musl or Google. Isn't it? This isn't about shoveling risk from Google to musl. We want musl to be a clear and unambiguously licensable product so we can use it. Incidentally, figuring out the licensing stuff here is a large distraction for our team (and we knew it would be), but we're willing to put in the time and effort because we think it's beneficial for the open source community overall, and because it's ethically correct. This isn't just CYA, and it's not some nefarious scheme. WRT bionic, I don't know what they're doing and I don't have any insight into what went into that decision. I only know what our team has been told about using musl. If it comes down to it, it might be possible for us to avoid using any of the public domain parts of musl - maybe in a fashion similar to what bionic did, I don't know yet. If that's good enough for our lawyers, it'll get our team unblocked and that's good enough I guess. Though, I'd prefer we solve this without such a workaround so others can benefit. > > Rune > --001a114223fac4bcdd052e401433 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Mar 17, 2016 1:18 AM, <u-uy74@aete= y.se> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 07:06:25PM -0700, Christopher Lane wrote:
> > ... if releasing under e.g. BSD0 is OK when PD isn't
> > valid, why isn't it OK for all situations.
>
> I expect that it is illegal in certain jurisdictions to claim
> copyright on a public domain matter.
>
> This is not a problem for the musl user (Google) but potentially endan= gers
> the developer who wrote the questionable copyright statement.
>
> This may explain why Google explicitly mentions "non-copyrightabl= e" in a case
> when it represents the developer party:
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:31:25AM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> > bionic actually generates its kernel interface headers from (gpl)= code
> > and each file has the comment:
> >
> >=C2=A0 ***=C2=A0 =C2=A0This header was automatically generated fro= m a Linux kernel header
> >=C2=A0 ***=C2=A0 =C2=A0of the same name, to make information neces= sary for userspace to
> >=C2=A0 ***=C2=A0 =C2=A0call into the kernel available to libc.=C2= =A0 It contains only constants,
> >=C2=A0 ***=C2=A0 =C2=A0structures, and macros generated from the o= riginal header, and thus,
> >=C2=A0 ***=C2=A0 =C2=A0contains no copyrightable information.
>
> So this is actually all about which party shall take the risks,
> musl or Google. Isn't it?

This isn't about shoveling risk from Google to musl.=C2= =A0 We want musl to be a clear and unambiguously licensable product so we c= an use it.=C2=A0 Incidentally, figuring out the licensing stuff here is a l= arge distraction for our team (and we knew it would be), but we're will= ing to put in the time and effort because we think it's beneficial for = the open source community overall, and because it's ethically correct. = This isn't just CYA, and it's not some nefarious scheme.

WRT bionic, I don't know what they're doing and I do= n't have any insight into what went into that decision.=C2=A0 I only kn= ow what our team has been told about using musl.

If it comes down to it, it might be possible for us to avoid= using any of the public domain parts of musl - maybe in a fashion similar = to what bionic did, I don't know yet.=C2=A0 If that's good enough f= or our lawyers, it'll get our team unblocked and that's good enough= I guess.=C2=A0 Though, I'd prefer we solve this without such a workaro= und so others can benefit.

>
> Rune
>

--001a114223fac4bcdd052e401433--