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 E2C533848029 for ; Sat, 26 Jun 2021 06:31:40 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org E2C533848029 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:51644) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lx1qt-0004g1-FG; Sat, 26 Jun 2021 02:31:39 -0400 Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:2217 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 1lx1qt-0006dj-0t; Sat, 26 Jun 2021 02:31:39 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 09:31:31 +0300 Message-Id: <83pmw9qgqk.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Siddhesh Poyarekar Cc: fweimer@redhat.com, libc-alpha@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: (message from Siddhesh Poyarekar on Fri, 25 Jun 2021 19:36:30 +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> X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KAM_SHORT, 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: Sat, 26 Jun 2021 06:31:42 -0000 > Cc: fweimer@redhat.com, libc-alpha@sourceware.org > From: Siddhesh Poyarekar > Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 19:36:30 +0530 > > On 6/25/21 7:14 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > One reference I'm aware of is this: > > > > https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2014/spring/copyright-assignment-at-the-fsf > > > > It explicitly says the developer can "modify, share, and sublicense > > their own work under terms of their choice". > > 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? > 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?