Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 08:50:34 -0300 From: Alba Pompeo <albapompeo@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Cc: Christopher Lane <lanechr@...il.com> Subject: Re: Re: Proposed COPYRIGHT file changes to resolve "PD" issue Was a resolution reached? On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:56 PM, George Kulakowski <kulakowski@...gle.com> wrote: > Hi Rich, > > rofl0r <retnyg@....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@...c.org> 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 <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.