From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/10071 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: Sun, 29 May 2016 11:46:07 -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=001a113cda4293647c0533ff8da5 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1464547584 27232 80.91.229.3 (29 May 2016 18:46:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 18:46:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com To: Alba Pompeo Original-X-From: musl-return-10084-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sun May 29 20:46:23 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 1b75jD-0006dw-8H for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Sun, 29 May 2016 20:46:23 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 6055 invoked by uid 550); 29 May 2016 18:46:21 -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 6037 invoked from network); 29 May 2016 18:46:20 -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=/SCnmNcNDu6wXdo9BP/O7C2TIf+H5FzWSMYoGhbauNQ=; b=DwRbTQkt9Bg3IBzicCduc7PgKh5pouvEm4ZDKGqGQeg1kI7PfMbietrSfZUN8bG/BR D4WXb1G8Tae1YpLED5EF/YHtgmLrLtdsPWfMN83QshrE2d88hFnNYGd74Bsv4p48hVEa 8MgrsXdpLR/jxAR1fhWNiL+WxFgqRjbHpOGsvMsaCOHBULtriD0XJbjxZZSxSQWN0cC+ uUXKaV2y//C2oJT4yY5kZ7z39HjX1EtfDyAE30homgJaTSTqgxL84qrxTpu8TUrUmtaS aSfvsZVcIdzHFsrJd7ul4Qn42qJ06ZE798eB9F0C+fGLdWhDD0jQYzASdRgppz2ro9mf VnlQ== 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=/SCnmNcNDu6wXdo9BP/O7C2TIf+H5FzWSMYoGhbauNQ=; b=BHRee5CkIvhwX/gNZ/YQ134fcUxbcZNgoK4cdSdRNfWHwxp0qov2/36LlLjqIe2DT9 tDcLDxx1WivUWOjDihqZJFBcO492f4A8GSNn7qq2lhZ0aIch49msfjvBwj2Hpvb0hTEb LEkP8ZmTT65IPxdmbgG9UIi1aayr1eWLccs8vRD/qPlGj0+RXU8+7nHzAfWFZq46Y9yF lIFPPGcCN8KaDB+QGLTat+IBMnWdN3HnHYkIBDA12N1vQC9KTSKaxSoOYEORyeh3JhLI R+7OWP2511+zqYv2DYzsPXrRNI+tjQBqjFJFwGKFbEW1VGDwJniZwOnIswMa+1NT+x5D tqVw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKd9pIAmZxAR/BM8ewPuYiv45NL0TtXLlleWJezp/BLwqk24drweb3t1GZi2edACZNjfEBOYrPKVEwhFQ== X-Received: by 10.202.49.18 with SMTP id x18mr13641066oix.106.1464547568475; Sun, 29 May 2016 11:46:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:10071 Archived-At: --001a113cda4293647c0533ff8da5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 We are, in various ways. We should be able to say more later this year. :) On May 28, 2016 8:58 AM, "Alba Pompeo" wrote: > Nice! Is Google using musl now? > > On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Christopher Lane > wrote: > > 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 > --001a113cda4293647c0533ff8da5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

We are, in various ways. We should be able to say more later= this year. :)

On May 28, 2016 8:58 AM, "Alba Pompeo"= <albapompeo@gmail.com> w= rote:
Nice! Is Googl= e using musl now?

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Christopher Lane <lanechr@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, and the changes were merged.
>
> On May 28, 2016 4:50 AM, "Alba Pompeo" <albapompeo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Was a resolution 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 Lan= e wrote:
>> >> > Rich,
>> >> >
>> >> > Our lawyers just got back to me: looks good to us.= =C2=A0 Thanks so much
>> >> > for
>> >> > all
>> >> > the time spent on this.
>> >>
>> >> At one point you said you would check the list of contrib= utors you
>> >> wanted to get clarification from. Does the list I put in = the proposed
>> >> patch look complete to you? I tried to include port contr= ibutors who
>> >> wrote significant new stuff for these files but not anyon= e who just
>> >> made minor patches to existing files or just copied exist= ing 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 s= poke with one of
>> >> > > Google's lawyers on the phone. It's tak= en 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 objecti= ons.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 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 de= aling with courts
>> >> > > wrongly (this is my opinion I'm injecting h= ere) deeming interfaces
>> >> > > to
>> >> > > be copyrightable, and having to spend ridiculou= sly disproportionate
>> >> > > effort to determine if the license actually giv= es them permission
>> >> > > to
>> >> > > use all the code.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > While I don't really agree that they actual= ly 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 abou= t whether you can
>> >> > > actually use the software, and certainly should= n't necessitate 60+
>> >> > > message mailing list threads.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > The proposal we reached on the phone call was t= hat 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 sta= tement that we _do_
>> >> > > hold copyright over these files is made, but th= e grants of
>> >> > > permission
>> >> > > are made unconditionally (i.e. without any cond= itions like "if
>> >> > > these
>> >> > > files are found to be subject to copyright...&q= uot;).
>> >> > >
>> >> > > How does this sound? See the attached patch for= the specific
>> >> > > wording
>> >> > > proposed and let me know if you have constructi= ve 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 t= he 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 do= ing this all in the open --
>> >> > > so
>> >> > > there still may be further feedback/input from = their side.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Rich
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > kthxbai
>> >> > :wq
--001a113cda4293647c0533ff8da5--