From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/9909 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: George Kulakowski Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Re: Proposed COPYRIGHT file changes to resolve "PD" issue Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 17:56:23 +0000 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=94eb2c11cc865e7ece0530759d81 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1460656609 1719 80.91.229.3 (14 Apr 2016 17:56:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 17:56:49 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com, Christopher Lane Original-X-From: musl-return-9922-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Apr 14 19:56:48 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 1aqlVX-0008VP-Ni for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 19:56:47 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 13930 invoked by uid 550); 14 Apr 2016 17:56:46 -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 13907 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2016 17:56:45 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=w7K9dbvaeYyJItZlqYKme/eo5jriZ3rqZ+AZzIvhg3I=; b=VpeKoF8RD5ZqWMmbCx50LKpoXu5P+LcjE+p6wxXQO9OOcQhWGabQ37AQMIGaxen5Yl gtUtvoX41EqI/U90qHdxYIuCgcf+0r9rIhJg30DJaYRxk03JyoF8/K6zqQJDqDtaosUT k10iCaynuO5ZM0vZ8/dmRrPa8EnHqNosa9R8Y7DD5cngtbcD0or3JkjOhv40FvgOSStG r00x2Lc19aCfWHfGiE2q9mty7kmDS2dgZim38dvgwfOt/0gJx04SK/dTUbVsYUAjgajC InOyvEX3bF3xDZrzjheX8xcgo3iJH/HCTiG/rEW7UtIePo25T7sGoQPi3oKT2GnWH/nX MmZg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=w7K9dbvaeYyJItZlqYKme/eo5jriZ3rqZ+AZzIvhg3I=; b=SpKZ4OFWvqBdzrCnyCar8EDnqtDd7W+LTHDSBxzsFGqmjU4d8WoorC4qBILWUD8nKQ k8LhCzclksWpOw6H95gQ1DK12lCvQ9/RZTGESCh+IL+JE+BPGUccStndAJ+x8GwY2CDG e046T05PLNlYwFlF0YdxqSDj/gFGStGPuFp4+2/26gQtdycjNZX7pXWsGH0iTs6d0iBu kaeDCIIQvJv7rTtOXZ75UGbEGjIpr/nJfYl7muuvfF2sqkpkXcEMUIe1aayilzO+4MEN 7LA1v9Je1MLo57C2OUWycIYQe3maAxT4we2ION0klMUwp72JpE9ZF3H10qNy4VaicLgz A68A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FVLMl+to2tKiSrQcNg+qlwHS+POvp5EgfZJpFhpRrzhkQ2lLb9hNsqnHuPSkjf2vVFRtpuuKYhW8UXq+Chp X-Received: by 10.98.53.6 with SMTP id c6mr22774521pfa.57.1460656593053; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:56:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20160413203511.GW21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:9909 Archived-At: --94eb2c11cc865e7ece0530759d81 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 > --94eb2c11cc865e7ece0530759d81 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Rich,

rofl0r <retnyg@gmx.net> is the only other contributor we foun= d to have made any changes to those files.

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:35 PM Rich Felker <<= a href=3D"mailto:dalias@libc.org">dalias@libc.org> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:57:06PM -0700, Chr= istopher Lane wrote:
> Rich,
>
> Our lawyers just got back to me: looks good to us.=C2=A0 Thanks so muc= h 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 <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 f= ollow up
> > after that because I was away at ELC last week, but I think we ha= ve a
> > good resolution as long as there are no objections.
> >
> > Where I was coming from was not wanting license crap to be an obs= tacle
> > 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 beli= ef
> > that some of these files are non-copyrightable or retroactively c= laim
> > ownership of something we can't own.
> >
> > Where they were coming from was a context of dealing with courts<= br> > > wrongly (this is my opinion I'm injecting here) deeming inter= faces to
> > be copyrightable, and having to spend ridiculously disproportiona= te
> > 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 curr= ent text
> > is causing concern means there's something wrong with it. A l= icense
> > should not make you have to stop and think about whether you can<= br> > > actually use the software, and certainly shouldn't necessitat= e 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 permis= sion
> > 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 word= ing
> > proposed and let me know if you have constructive ideas for impro= ving
> > it. On our side, it's really the agreement of the contributor= s of the
> > affected code (I have a draft list of them in the patch) that mat= ters,
> > 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 th= e open -- so
> > there still may be further feedback/input from their side.
> >
> > Rich
> >
>
>
>
> --
> kthxbai
> :wq
--94eb2c11cc865e7ece0530759d81--