[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJDAfTBUudv0vw-rW9+Rk0-XSC5Ljh00SnwYZuoAi1_mAC9SNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 12:58:08 -0300
From: Alba Pompeo <albapompeo@...il.com>
To: Christopher Lane <lanechr@...il.com>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: Proposed COPYRIGHT file changes to resolve "PD" issue
Nice! Is Google using musl now?
On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Christopher Lane <lanechr@...il.com> wrote:
> Yes, and the changes were merged.
>
> On May 28, 2016 4:50 AM, "Alba Pompeo" <albapompeo@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
