Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 12:57:06 -0700 From: Christopher Lane <lanechr@...il.com> To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Proposed COPYRIGHT file changes to resolve "PD" issue Rich, Our lawyers just got back to me: looks good to us. Thanks so much for all the time spent on this. On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.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 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 Content of type "text/html" skipped
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.