Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:09:48 +0200 From: Sebastian Gottschall <s.gottschall@...wrt.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Re: Proposed COPYRIGHT file changes to resolve "PD" issue any news? Am 13.04.2016 um 22:35 schrieb Rich Felker: > 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 <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
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.