From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from pbcl.net (pbcl.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:c2c:5794::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DF953857025 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 14:04:37 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 8DF953857025 Received: from pb by pbcl.net with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lxrs9-0006Nm-5H; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 16:04:25 +0200 Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 16:04:25 +0200 From: Phil Blundell To: Siddhesh Poyarekar Cc: Eli Zaretskii , fweimer@redhat.com, libc-alpha@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Seeking input from developers: glibc copyright assignment policy. Message-ID: <20210628140425.GE5525@pbcl.net> References: <87mtre9m53.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <0676248d-9143-0d4f-5af7-b9bbcce1cb81@gotplt.org> <87im229laa.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <51a5326b-e870-1202-3dde-970f77a16471@gotplt.org> <835yy2rrd3.fsf@gnu.org> <83pmw9qgqk.fsf@gnu.org> <3d846805-d11d-74c4-d513-ec1aeb1077fa@gotplt.org> <83czs6p58q.fsf@gnu.org> <78c1b48e-2008-b703-321b-8d572dee3a71@gotplt.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <78c1b48e-2008-b703-321b-8d572dee3a71@gotplt.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, LIKELY_SPAM_BODY, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no 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: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 14:04:39 -0000 On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 06:36:21PM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > I too have been worried that I'm the only one publicly making this > interpretation. Just to jump in on that particular point, I don't think you should assume that everybody else is firmly wedded to the opposite interpretation. My own view on that is that the situation is ambiguous and I suspect we will never find out for sure until/unless someone ends up litigating the point and a court has to render an opinion. But equally, I am not too bothered about it because the answer doesn't seem to be directly germane to the point at hand. Personally I have already signed an "all future changes" assignment to the FSF in respect of my changes to glibc and, although it's probably true that my opinion of the FSF as an organisation has shifted slightly in the quarter of a century since I originally signed the paperwork, I'm not sufficiently exercised about the situation to consider trying to change anything. Even for new contributors I'm not sure that the requirement to assign copyright to the FSF represents a huge barrier in itself. I haven't noticed a large number of would-be contributors mention that as something that's a deal-breaker for them. What *does* seem to be an issue in practice is the associated requirement to get your employer / university to disclaim their own interest in the changes and I have the impression that this is where the majority of people who get stuck come to grief. I think it's already been noted that glibc already contains code which belongs to multiple copyright holders and there doesn't seem to be any realistic prospect of relicensing the whole library regardless of what happens with future contributions. So, as far as I can tell, the debate really seems to boil down to the risk of a DCO'd submission later turning out to include a copyright bomb if some organisation or individual were to come out of the woodwork and assert ownership of it. And more specifically, whether we as a project feel that this increased risk is justified by the removal of a roadblock to future contributors. My own view is that the risk, although not zero, is still small enough to be tolerable and it would be outweighed by the benefit of not seeming to throw obstacles in the way of would-be contributors. I'm not sure that discussing the finer nuances of exactly what rights the FSF does or doesn't grant back as part of a copyright assignment really moves us any further forward. Any would-be contributor for whom that's an issue is going to have to make their own mind up about it anyway irrespective of what consensus we reach here about the "correct" reading of the license text. p.