From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from antelope.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (antelope.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.4]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FA3B385782C for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:06:43 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 7FA3B385782C 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 6C33B3435AA; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:06:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a39.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-17-81.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.17.81]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A0C3034348D; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:06:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|siddhesh@gotplt.org Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a39.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 100.96.17.81 (trex/6.3.3); Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:06:40 +0000 X-MC-Relay: Neutral X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|siddhesh@gotplt.org X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost X-Trail-Robust: 3eb5ee6a56f27021_1624885590018_3181522985 X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1624885590018:4153989665 X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1624885590018 Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a39.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a39.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7390B7F458; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 06:06:28 -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=Ix2XH7 W8DgX87esIpAgvHY/9DFg=; b=GvqT9U08P4yuLXQ5kBgMuYaBiixu+0JGX7wbjS TPEnUXIH8CABBWTf4j9WFQLXDtdRAAw7WtII671XazF33Uvh/VFEktBNXlNqt6+f YICZ2I5HXiXzxr7vPQ7Xc70pC3FWdpG0RwbhbUSlrF5gUei/9J3iZOFBS2NJwAQa ZwRto= Received: from [192.168.1.136] (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-a39.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 571AD7EE56; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 06:06:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Seeking input from developers: glibc copyright assignment policy. To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: fweimer@redhat.com, libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: <4369849.fY2oj7UdlA@omega> <83sg17rrf6.fsf@gnu.org> <83k0misbni.fsf@gnu.org> <3e0c8f21-422b-ffd6-d939-49f88f09cac7@gotplt.org> <83fsx6s9so.fsf@gnu.org> <2619fea4-4fb4-84cf-b9d2-f1ef21d40bcb@gotplt.org> <83a6nerxhg.fsf@gnu.org> <42bd0b29-7bcd-1c3a-4fde-269d869b0afb@gotplt.org> <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> X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a39 From: Siddhesh Poyarekar Message-ID: <78c1b48e-2008-b703-321b-8d572dee3a71@gotplt.org> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 18:36:21 +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: <83czs6p58q.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: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 13:06:49 -0000 On 6/28/21 5:31 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> To flip it around, if I as the second party to that agreement, claim >> that the agreement means that I am entitled to compensation for my >> patches or some other ridiculous claim, does that claim have weight? > > On which parts of the document will you base this ridiculous claim? It was a general question, not specific to the document to get across the point that one cannot make generally acceptable claims that way. You can trust them if you want, but you need to be aware that they can be disputed. >>>> If I looked at the same article in a different context, it appears to me >>>> that "use" is distinct enough from "modify, share and sublicense" that >>>> the latter needs to be spelled out explicitly. >>> >>> But they are all allowed, according to the article, so why does it >>> matter? >> >> Because an article is not a legal document. > > Since legal documents rarely change, reasonable interpretation by > experts is what you have to do with. It is very strange to hear what > you say in this case, given that no one else seems to be of the same > opinion, everyone else interpret this as a grant of unlimited > nonexclusive rights. It almost sounds like you don't _want_ the > language to mean that. I too have been worried that I'm the only one publicly making this interpretation. This is especially because I too, like you had incorrectly assumed that the grant back returned the same unlimited rights to me as part of the assignment process; I even retracted that upthread after Florian's comment and subsequent reading. And now that I think of it (and it's pretty much been front and centre in my head all weekend), I remember at least one entity I have worked with in the past having made this interpretation, specifically with respect to the FSF agreement and making sure they worked around it. I did not quite understand it then and assumed it to be paranoia. To be clear, I don't doubt the FSF's intention with respect to the agreement. I have no reason to believe that they'll misuse the assignment not do I have any interest in relicensing code I have assigned to the FSF either directly or otherwise. What I am trying to get across however is that there's no canonical interpretation. Siddhesh