From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from aye.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (aye.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.6]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26D543857432 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 06:48:05 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 26D543857432 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=gotplt.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gotplt.org X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|siddhesh@gotplt.org Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83A124826D6; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 06:48:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a75.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-13-105.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.13.105]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F2ED54821D3; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 06:48:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|siddhesh@gotplt.org Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a75.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 100.96.13.105 (trex/6.3.3); Fri, 25 Jun 2021 06:48:04 +0000 X-MC-Relay: Neutral X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|siddhesh@gotplt.org X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost X-Lettuce-Ski: 511df3aa0f1538b7_1624603684229_1225949165 X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1624603684229:846995781 X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1624603684228 Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a75.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a75.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4BA38C383; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 23:48:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gotplt.org; h=subject:to :cc:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=gotplt.org; bh=ZqB/Ot RkCjMNBlP208SVuVwgEX0=; b=qkRT5S8LOUQyB4wLVwrwerrMofh4A4dodUElr7 ck/XEOc6SL6ygkHvwBBP4EkW7uXRQydaASvTj/YkoLXn28JKU+PC8fao3+Q/YQQG VXaSyOxZTFBEE0Dd1lAzSjx4Yybf52nxFC5kKLRZUky1wepbmMucvOTMmC9l9Slc vcQkw= Received: from [192.168.1.134] (unknown [1.186.101.110]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: siddhesh@gotplt.org) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a75.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CA61F8C382; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 23:48:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Seeking input from developers: glibc copyright assignment policy. To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: <4369849.fY2oj7UdlA@omega> <83sg17rrf6.fsf@gnu.org> <83k0misbni.fsf@gnu.org> X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a75 From: Siddhesh Poyarekar Message-ID: <3e0c8f21-422b-ffd6-d939-49f88f09cac7@gotplt.org> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 12:17:57 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <83k0misbni.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3029.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, 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: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 06:48:08 -0000 On 6/25/21 11:56 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > I don't follow. You said: > >> (2) contributors who prefer to retain ownership of their content for >> various reasons > > I'm showing text from the assignment agreement that IMO clearly says > the developer retains all the rights. IOW, as long as the developer > doesn't prevent the FSF from using the changes as they see fit, the > developer can do anything with the changes, including distributing > them under any license the developer wants. Why doesn't this satisfy > your point (2)? Sorry I should have been clearer, I meant to say that an assignment with a grant back implies a shared ownership, which is different from wanting exclusive ownership. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to be picky about who they share ownership with. >> It still needs trust in the organization to represent my values. > > I think this is (3), not (2). > > And I don't really understand what values are being alluded to here. > The FSF is an organization whose only purpose is supporting and > promoting Free Software; as such, the only relevant values (or should > I say "value", singular) is the support and promotion of Free > Software. Anything else is not relevant to the FSF and our relations > with it, and can only be some private values or views of some FSF > members. What does this have to do with the copyright assignment for > a contribution to a GNU project such as glibc? That's for me to decide, no? :) Different people take a different view of the kinds of values they would attach to an engagement and it may differ with the nature of engagement. > The DCO text practically tells the developer not to worry about "this > nonsense", and just say things "to the best of his/her knowledge". It > doesn't even explain the purpose of the declarations in the DCO and > how they will be used by the project. For example, the crucial > importance of the information veracity for a possible future > litigation is never mentioned. So even if the developer wants to > DTRT, they won't know what is and isn't important in their > declaration, and thus will not be able to make sure the important > information is verified and correct. I don't think that difference matters in practice, definitely not enough to create an elaborate mechanism that is similarly leaky. > Oh, and talking about dishonest contributors is not useful. I'm > talking about the honest ones. If someone wants to lie about the Agreed, I mentioned that case only for completeness. Siddhesh