From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9779 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Christopher Lane Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl licensing Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 07:11:45 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20160318042158.GN21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20160318191209.GQ21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20160319043547.GS21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20160323023221.GJ21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20160330065616.GO25524@example.net> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f234575dc1ce4052f44b99e X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1459347127 18998 80.91.229.3 (30 Mar 2016 14:12:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:12:07 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-9792-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Mar 30 16:12:02 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 1alGqo-0006Np-HF for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 16:12:02 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 30258 invoked by uid 550); 30 Mar 2016 14:11:58 -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 30240 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2016 14:11:57 -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=ZDG6tiK51pjxAY4BRVF4+4opxX2qy7sboVcetXityyk=; b=dHDf5ECzsdPtfGoYdPMHCO3/20cqLueXBVVj5smvL2HfmyGyut8PdbPEPXl88vWEEY XCa2xKQnT53ODEV6VfK4PWmuRRudlyrpnvoEnBicQPfpIkHHQEj//GxMdxYZOWWeB5EW qvbBOU8h52HnlLXu67PeFCNqGzPSk/HyzUNSKl9sfD2VF++qrJ/OV8KBypwUrLPJFN4e OaOCv/sijVbab/+FXW8c6y5V6sGXG2V3bjNCqQGgMgNub9oq1Zb4GryGMcjs0+jtM6iX lpXv6/R039tvVtewVGuu7JnbPqIdozY46mT+PiDNdKmXXBebdd6wFQGLhVogHNkdUjX6 FdoA== 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=ZDG6tiK51pjxAY4BRVF4+4opxX2qy7sboVcetXityyk=; b=gF3ub0uzeZgUVy3R9sCkgrSodo0tY18h7+P3MtNIGoixnbb1pDyJc8tS+PL6xnBqql 2hpa9gPJs7VLBeXEfmqcGmt2/OPAj8i4DlcxhXUxfhtdn7OOsRYFU/Q2RW5ZQLJEVGd2 mLHXEhu0/U8ntKoIOAwtRS11TTAtPbqtTEKkEQulH0Gpjbq39+Kwf1QEsrXVaWeV8IUa 9HRGmIA1IcQWjsY6tLApbhXsrVGcQYO/YV1BplaVaaQBIlpsJAlEJ5AlLKuBhXV6H3AX puVZo3T9yU62f5al6sRbOPc7ItSxoHgAyWbivR27+J46mxeqyF0Ul/OLEzH/Ts/yd5Af Gqng== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJuNPZz1QhZlDsyhI+U4NwxzCf/JCONvSTb6Idj+0beHROW29nwwQTJga/r4c5YAry7TaT2DvRfi1Hpcw== X-Received: by 10.50.92.41 with SMTP id cj9mr10195406igb.38.1459347106043; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 07:11:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160330065616.GO25524@example.net> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9779 Archived-At: --e89a8f234575dc1ce4052f44b99e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mar 29, 2016 11:56 PM, wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:21:25AM -0700, Christopher Lane wrote: > > Listen, if we're asking you for too much, I get it. This is not our > > project. We didn't pour years into it, you did, and you have to do what > > you think is right. If it's beyond your personal ethics to claim copyright > > over the trivial files and public headers you wrote, then that's the way it > > is. I'll be sad, but we'll deal with it. > > I appreciate your statement, but to be a little picky, > and possibly as an argument to mention to your lawyers (?) : > > This is not necessarily a question of ethics, but somewhat a question > of legal safety, as well as it is for Google. > > [You wrote > > "Google's on the receiving end of the musl license, so it seems a "good > license" for us is one that provides clarity on what we can do with the > code. So [...] -- one that we _can't_ be sued over."] > > Rich/musl are on the other side and it certainly is illegal (somewhere) > to claim copyright on something which is not copyrightable (at that place). I don't know that this is true. We can set aside whether the crt files and public headers are copyrightable (I think they are; I've mentioned my reasoning earlier); let's assume for same of argument they are not. Given that, I don't know that it would be illegal to claim copyright over them anyway. It would be an unenforceable claim, certainly, but it's not evident to me that it would be illegal. Your mention of the possibility is the first I've heard of it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud gives one account that doesn't indicate illegality, albeit from an apparently US-centric view. Do you know of a country that has criminal laws around this? I could imagine it being illegal somewhere to attempt to _enforce_ a copyright claim over public domain work (i.e. extract payment from someone for using a public domain work,) but we're not asking Rich to do that. And AFAICT even that's not illegal. > The consequences may vary from place to place and from time to time. > > (I understand that it is not as attractive to sue the musl project as > it would be to sue Google, where the money is, but nevertheless. > May be Rich wants to travel to a country where an "illicit" copyright > claim results in a jail term, or will happen to, in the future?) > > Regards, > Rune > --e89a8f234575dc1ce4052f44b99e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mar 29, 2016 11:56 PM, <u-uy74@aetey.se> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:21:25AM -0700, Christopher Lane wrote:
> > Listen, if we're asking you for too much, I get it.=C2=A0 Thi= s is not our
> > project.=C2=A0 We didn't pour years into it, you did, and you= have to do what
> > you think is right.=C2=A0 If it's beyond your personal ethics= to claim copyright
> > over the trivial files and public headers you wrote, then that= 9;s the way it
> > is.=C2=A0 I'll be sad, but we'll deal with it.
>
> I appreciate your statement, but to be a little picky,
> and possibly as an argument to mention to your lawyers (?) :
>
> This is not necessarily a question of ethics, but somewhat a question<= br> > of legal safety, as well as it is for Google.
>
> [You wrote
>
> "Google's on the receiving end of the musl license, so it see= ms a "good
> license" for us is one that provides clarity on what we can do wi= th the
> code.=C2=A0 So [...] -- one that we _can't_ be sued over."] >
> Rich/musl are on the other side and it certainly is illegal (somewhere= )
> to claim copyright on something which is not copyrightable (at that pl= ace).

I don't know that this is true.=C2=A0 We can set aside w= hether the crt files and public headers are copyrightable (I think they are= ; I've mentioned my reasoning earlier); let's assume for same of ar= gument they are not.=C2=A0 Given that, I don't know that it would be il= legal to claim copyright over them anyway.=C2=A0 It would be an unenforceab= le claim, certainly, but it's not evident to me that it would be illega= l.=C2=A0 Your mention of the possibility is the first I've heard of it.=

https:= //en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud gives one account that doesn't = indicate illegality, albeit from an apparently US-centric view.=C2=A0 Do yo= u know of a country that has criminal laws around this?

I could imagine it being illegal somewhere to attempt to _en= force_ a copyright claim over public domain work (i.e. extract payment from= someone for using a public domain work,) but we're not asking Rich to = do that.=C2=A0 And AFAICT even that's not illegal.

> The consequences may vary from place to place and from = time to time.
>
> (I understand that it is not as attractive to sue the musl project as<= br> > it would be to sue Google, where the money is, but nevertheless.
> May be Rich wants to travel to a country where an "illicit" = copyright
> claim results in a jail term, or will happen to, in the future?)
>
> Regards,
> Rune
>

--e89a8f234575dc1ce4052f44b99e--