From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [131.179.128.68]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA58E3857424 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 19:35:51 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org BA58E3857424 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=cs.ucla.edu Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cs.ucla.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B50316008B; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:35:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id QX5t-P01nsxs; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:35:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B95B1600AD; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:35:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id OpX_Q0TKXvAL; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:35:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.9] (cpe-172-91-119-151.socal.res.rr.com [172.91.119.151]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 44DEF16008B; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:35:50 -0700 (PDT) To: DJ Delorie Cc: carlos@redhat.com, libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: From: Paul Eggert Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Subject: Re: Seeking input from developers: glibc copyright assignment policy. Message-ID: <1b2ac4c8-0bbf-b7a7-8b05-03d5a71d46f4@cs.ucla.edu> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:35:49 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 19:35:52 -0000 On 6/15/21 12:12 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: > A future glibc could distribute under the terms of LGPL4+, but a > future glibc could NOT change the license to "LGPL4+". So, are you saying that in string/strcpy.c we could not change the "2.1"=20 to 3 in the following comment: The GNU C Library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. and redistribute the result, assuming strcpy.c has some DCO'ed code?=20 We've routinely been doing such replacements for years in other Gnu=20 code. Gnulib even automates the practice. If true, it's a significant argument against going with DCO'ed code.=20 Certainly we couldn't accept DCO'ed material in any Glibc code shared=20 with Gnulib, as Gnulib code is shared among many GNU projects that don't=20 do DCO and do such rewriting. And even if we ignore Gnulib, this could=20 be a real problem if copyright law were to change in a way that=20 adversely affects free-software principles, so that we'd really need an=20 LGPL 4. Have the Red Hat lawyers looked into this issue specifically?