From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21EA63973017 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 12:02:17 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 21EA63973017 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:35606) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lxpxv-0008HG-DP; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 08:02:15 -0400 Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:4054 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lxpxg-0005AJ-H4; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 08:02:01 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 15:01:57 +0300 Message-Id: <83czs6p58q.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Siddhesh Poyarekar Cc: fweimer@redhat.com, libc-alpha@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <3d846805-d11d-74c4-d513-ec1aeb1077fa@gotplt.org> (message from Siddhesh Poyarekar on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 09:41:03 +0530) Subject: Re: Seeking input from developers: glibc copyright assignment policy. 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> X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Level: ** 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 12:02:18 -0000 > Cc: fweimer@redhat.com, libc-alpha@sourceware.org > From: Siddhesh Poyarekar > Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 09:41:03 +0530 > > On 6/26/21 12:01 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> That's a claim from the FSF, which does not to correspond to the text of > >> the agreement; I don't know if that can be viewed as a clarification. > > > > Since those are the guys to whom the assignment goes, I think their > > claim does have some weight. And note the authors of that article. > > > > But if that's insufficient, whose opinion will satisfy you? > > Even if I concede to the idea that their claim has some weight , they do > not explicitly say that the "use" in our agreements implies distribution > rights. Also, how much legal weight does a website article (regardless > of its source) have over an agreement, especially one which says that it > most likely never will be supplemented by another agreement? AFAIU, that's how things are in the legal business: you get the opinions of the experts and work with that. > 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? > >> 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.