From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/10068 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Christopher Lane Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Re: Proposed COPYRIGHT file changes to resolve "PD" issue Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 08:45:31 -0700 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: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113cddded05caf0533e8e9fa X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1464450348 11450 80.91.229.3 (28 May 2016 15:45:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 15:45:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com To: Alba Pompeo Original-X-From: musl-return-10081-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sat May 28 17:45:47 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 1b6gQt-0002j6-4W for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Sat, 28 May 2016 17:45:47 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 5793 invoked by uid 550); 28 May 2016 15:45:44 -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 5763 invoked from network); 28 May 2016 15:45:43 -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=lMKlAW3HtEQHG/PJIgXq0fzSAcfBJHZ6jHuTjmA1GCQ=; b=bUVvLbtbkl4uL0u4tjWhitSVQK1YqzT7DSvt50NnyKl4Irogzqq7ut0vxuWJZwMFl2 XV4WXkXcWJ4zR+WpnUcVcfESAjLwoFhmUR9tAL0/fuGIwZK3RY65juBl0IJ/yJ0zcBH1 8k+GWIB7wFSI+9ydXOPK084yW8h4NBqWRNJL3ygiQrFSAmmuM7bg0FeE/RJBYZ3+MpaN dkztv5xog+K8fxfYoq4j+SQzAIGtulS4ZvKl93BuLI47zvTQd/a6WLWbCmQ1d6nvYtl4 cemliLU7+wI16aJKdmfOGAV2ScVIK7894lDEAw0rbqKwJWujF3KmIEWAEm9II7shok6T wFMQ== 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=lMKlAW3HtEQHG/PJIgXq0fzSAcfBJHZ6jHuTjmA1GCQ=; b=cmN/fAcUubFnUovc2IAvUifm1BqSjyLhnSc59cAqlaTTED0d2SiG8wHkjzTycSf8Sc 6qKSsdxgP6NuF4nOPU5chcE7krVm0z5FeE/lD/oLj8P3J6yzHsnAXIy5o3SeHxToUpyf OVCuN8uu4i7suHIlZuLU+TFkdiIFro3P5DPmXmVlKUkelkIKco3y/qf+yFSJMmdlkEq9 8HSf7MRxN7BVhf6AVe90gt449SqxmfGCY2/7/VC25d1DcdAq3/IHnNIcaSdt3/S6OpoK o50UfOYK7Uhvz/aUIV9E36PfPnlbledAm07Q03m5RznnecKYHroIZ+DMn2ZkovgS2A+9 MuHw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJ40HY+a5oBfX5eGrck/EVm13PoGzqI10qO91RXYFLoZhsBgzUgwPEmACwABuTYQyHZ12tlUQPhwe1Bhw== X-Received: by 10.202.170.150 with SMTP id t144mr11722959oie.95.1464450331726; Sat, 28 May 2016 08:45:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:10068 Archived-At: --001a113cddded05caf0533e8e9fa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 > --001a113cddded05caf0533e8e9fa Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yes, and the changes were merged.

On May 28, 2016 4:50 AM, "Alba Pompeo"= <albapompeo@gmail.com> w= rote:
Was a resoluti= on reached?


On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:56 PM, George Kulakowski
<kulakowski@google.com> = wrote:
> Hi Rich,
>
> rofl0r <retnyg@gmx.net> 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 <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:57:06PM -0700, Christopher Lane wrote:<= br> >> > Rich,
>> >
>> > Our lawyers just got back to me: looks good to us.=C2=A0 Than= ks 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 propo= sed
>> patch look complete to you? I tried to include port contributors w= ho
>> wrote significant new stuff for these files but not anyone who jus= t
>> 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 <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 w= hile to follow up
>> > > after that because I was away at ELC last week, but I th= ink 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 relicen= sed 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 retroa= ctively claim
>> > > ownership of something we can't own.
>> > >
>> > > Where they were coming from was a context of dealing wit= h courts
>> > > wrongly (this is my opinion I'm injecting here) deem= ing interfaces to
>> > > be copyrightable, and having to spend ridiculously dispr= oportionate
>> > > effort to determine if the license actually gives them p= ermission to
>> > > use all the code.
>> > >
>> > > While I don't really agree that they actually have c= ause 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 wit= h it. A license
>> > > should not make you have to stop and think about whether= you can
>> > > actually use the software, and certainly shouldn't n= ecessitate 60+
>> > > message mailing list threads.
>> > >
>> > > The proposal we reached on the phone call was that I wou= ld try
>> > > improving the previous patch to no longer make a stateme= nt about the
>> > > copyrightability of the files in question, but to note t= hat we
>> > > expressed such a belief in the past. No new statement th= at we _do_
>> > > hold copyright over these files is made, but the grants = of permission
>> > > are made unconditionally (i.e. without any conditions li= ke "if these
>> > > files are found to be subject to copyright..."). >> > >
>> > > How does this sound? See the attached patch for the spec= ific wording
>> > > proposed and let me know if you have constructive ideas = for improving
>> > > it. On our side, it's really the agreement of the co= ntributors 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 pat= ch 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 sid= e.
>> > >
>> > > Rich
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > kthxbai
>> > :wq
--001a113cddded05caf0533e8e9fa--