From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9900 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Christopher Lane Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Proposed COPYRIGHT file changes to resolve "PD" issue Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:57:06 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20160411041445.GS21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140d71eb277c70530632e84 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1460577449 31372 80.91.229.3 (13 Apr 2016 19:57:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:57:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com To: Rich Felker Original-X-From: musl-return-9913-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Apr 13 21:57:28 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 1aqQul-0000bj-VI for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 21:57:28 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 32277 invoked by uid 550); 13 Apr 2016 19:57:24 -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 32228 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2016 19:57:18 -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=wkGt/LefYNBD7MDD5wCYRUhAfjcrSwSrKzwdTixo62U=; b=f4L8Nwf4LfZgaQJ1id3Xw6jTI0FvIR4mNiZWjswKtHaANnDL24mmELyI7b8Kc5axye Un76sPI7L/zX65T5dpzudOJvX0N/uPXeOBGVmUBhFhVbRNse7vqEWmRFJRASp0lK57h8 aeUU6+frSms3acfsU1quaQ3PkAZ+94FZRngL8Zp/DHdFZFbIcTQRb7HGg3nv9/V5Jk6k IvujMpfBKEV+BglsTB8A4ZgOw+XCgelvOnqpFPdWuBFWLatMmg46qAsoN2eBr6EI9IlM CF6GQ+P3DnZubQk5N9nVGfB6GUr60K+DdcjW+b+HBgf/Y5mT/H5DbftHc2s/ZvR22MrS Vc0Q== 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=wkGt/LefYNBD7MDD5wCYRUhAfjcrSwSrKzwdTixo62U=; b=Ga8Jx0gptbYKmqEyoHgC8p3xHF1FrA3wZ34ce8XKEjHFtbig1XFS6DjUkbQvNr5I+/ ntrJokbxQ5Jg4Rd9nHk5nvdE41/HB/EkpaQZ5aakKmukQmwNa+5cvPl70OuN/+/Cp/6E 8Y0f8Jr+s3KKbBuF2xrOxSvFATPTqdxcKWH396mtOqWG80R2827CjZR3Qbx5ft9vFQsr usxRZDhiRshKYDP8NJtPaembVa6wSK5BoLn9iDqZ5aBAM2khUeh0MMiu8kdxU0EQqa2f rFJeipjwc9rCGvhY/8uBjoUKi2HOpE/vYYK1Xw7BcvDdvrfjAr3spt9PxpyCK2S1aueY dN+A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXm0BM9dJ6OU62wWqLcZnktwB3k6UmVCGXkbskm66bBhmvw8JE8SB9/o4JNRT+7EgLOPFysB36/6cyt8Q== X-Received: by 10.107.30.71 with SMTP id e68mr12396925ioe.145.1460577426893; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:57:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160411041445.GS21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9900 Archived-At: --001a1140d71eb277c70530632e84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Rich, Our lawyers just got back to me: looks good to us. Thanks so much for all the time spent on this. 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 --001a1140d71eb277c70530632e84 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Rich,

Our lawyers just got back to me: = looks good to us.=C2=A0 Thanks so much for all the time spent on this.

On Sun, Ap= r 10, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> 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
--001a1140d71eb277c70530632e84--