Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 00:14:45 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Cc: Christopher Lane <lanechr@...il.com> Subject: Proposed COPYRIGHT file changes to resolve "PD" issue 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 View attachment "google2.diff" of type "text/plain" (2560 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.