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 AE52C39BC04A for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 07:52:51 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org AE52C39BC04A Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:43308) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lwgdu-0005nM-TP; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 03:52:50 -0400 Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:2102 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 1lwgdu-0000Na-Gp; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 03:52:50 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 10:52:39 +0300 Message-Id: <83eecqs7nc.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Florian Weimer Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, siddhesh@gotplt.org In-Reply-To: <87pmwaieyk.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> (message from Florian Weimer on Fri, 25 Jun 2021 09:24:51 +0200) Subject: Re: Seeking input from developers: glibc copyright assignment policy. References: <4369849.fY2oj7UdlA@omega> <83sg17rrf6.fsf@gnu.org> <83k0misbni.fsf@gnu.org> <87pmwaieyk.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> 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: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 07:52:53 -0000 > From: Florian Weimer > Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar , Eli Zaretskii > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 09:24:51 +0200 > > * Eli Zaretskii via Libc-alpha: > > > I'm showing text from the assignment agreement that IMO clearly says > > the developer retains all the rights. > > No, the developer gives up copyright ownership. I don't understand what that means, sorry. The text says I can do anything and everything I want with the code, except interfering with the FSF's use of that code. So what exactly did I give up? > This has real legal consequences, and it is quite different from a > broad-ranging license to use the contributions. If the FSF wanted > the latter, it could ask for precisely that, but instead it asks for > full ownership. I looked up all the instances of "owner" and "ownership" in the CLA text, and couldn't find where they ask for "full ownership". What did I miss? > Apart from the recent actions of the FSF that are so difficult to > understand, there is also a glibc-specific aspect here: The FSF is > ignoring large-scale LGPL infringement that comes with incorrect use of > container technology. (At the very least, publishing a container image > with glibc in it requires certain legal notices according to the LGPL > terms, and all binaries linked against glibc must be re-linkable against > a changed glibc.) This has reached such a degree that distributors of > container images might legally assume that the FSF has waived any and > all LGPL requirements, which the FSF can do as the copyright owner. I don't know about this specific case, but it sounds like something to raise up with the FSF, and urgently. > If true, only an influx of additional copyright owners for glibc can > preserve the (limited) copyleft nature of glibc. How will it do that? If you have 100 or 500 or 1000 copyright owners, how would glibc do better in case of such infringements?