From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFE8F3891C11 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 08:51:29 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org DFE8F3891C11 Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-601-tf2LH2NwPvSr8JnSl9K9ew-1; Wed, 07 Jul 2021 04:51:28 -0400 X-MC-Unique: tf2LH2NwPvSr8JnSl9K9ew-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11BD78030B0; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 08:51:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (ovpn-115-5.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.115.5]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B15605D9FC; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 08:51:21 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: "Bradley M. Kuhn" Cc: Paul Eggert , Carlos O'Donell , libc-alpha@sourceware.org, Bruno Haible , "Dmitry V. Levin" Subject: Re: Seeking input from developers: glibc copyright assignment policy. References: <1b2ac4c8-0bbf-b7a7-8b05-03d5a71d46f4@cs.ucla.edu> <87eeceqomw.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <7ce2b2b9-eb78-399d-abb2-de7690b3da5b@cs.ucla.edu> <89e0ff1d-2500-3fa4-4565-e6ef30656b95@cs.ucla.edu> <38a0e201-8d99-ef4e-c9c4-58478d8cfd53@cs.ucla.edu> Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2021 10:51:19 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Bradley M. Kuhn's message of "Tue, 6 Jul 2021 15:04:46 -0700") Message-ID: <87a6mybj7c.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) 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: Wed, 07 Jul 2021 08:51:31 -0000 * Bradley M. Kuhn: >> On 7/6/21 11:05 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: >> > Is the =E2=80=9CGNU Toolchain Authors=E2=80=9D a entity that legally e= xists? Only a real >> > entity should be listed in a copyright notice. > > Paul Eggert replied: >> Yes and no. It's OK for a copyright notice to identify owners by referen= ce >> instead of by naming them explicitly. See section 2205.2(F) of the Copyr= ight >> Compendium I mentioned earlier >> . It gives >> "copyright by publisher" as an example, where the publisher must be obvi= ous >> from the rest of the document content. > > Neither of us are lawyers, so it'd be best to work this through with a > copyright attorney if we want better answers. Relaying the conversations > I've had with copyright attorneys on this: the publisher is of course als= o > already a legal entity, too, and also there is litigation around this tha= t > won't show up in the Copyright Office circulars. > > Additionally, I and my colleagues at Conservancy have had no end of > discussions with folks from the Copyright Office to get the =E2=80=9Creal= story=E2=80=9D > about various things that just don't show up in the circulars as well. > >> I agree that it'd be helpful to have such a file if well-maintained, >> regardless of whether we make changes to the existing copyright >> notices. I'd welcome contributions along those lines. > > I'll speak to my colleagues at Conservancy to see if we can fund staff ti= me > to make a patchset of this nature for glibc. I'll probably need a week o= r so > to get back to you on that, but it is unlikely to be urgent. Would this result in a accurate list of copyright holders and their licenses, or just present the existing data from the source tree in a new way? The second approach does not strike me as a good idea because the current data is likely quite inaccurate, and resubmitting it makes it seem more authoritative than it actually is. Thanks, Florian