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 [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE182385AC0A for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 08:23:14 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org CE182385AC0A 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-562-X4Fas8o0NSa9bCInufw3uA-1; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 04:23:10 -0400 X-MC-Unique: X4Fas8o0NSa9bCInufw3uA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C042418414A0; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 08:23:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (ovpn-112-228.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.228]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDBAE60C5F; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 08:23:08 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, siddhesh@gotplt.org 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> <83eecqs7nc.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 10:23:06 +0200 In-Reply-To: <83eecqs7nc.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 25 Jun 2021 10:52:39 +0300") Message-ID: <87h7hmic9h.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 10.5.11.12 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=-6.7 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_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham 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: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 08:23:16 -0000 * Eli Zaretskii: >> From: Florian Weimer >> Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar , Eli Zaretskii >> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 09:24:51 +0200 >>=20 >> * Eli Zaretskii via Libc-alpha: >>=20 >> > I'm showing text from the assignment agreement that IMO clearly says >> > the developer retains all the rights. >>=20 >> 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? Ownership, that is, you don't control anymore who gets to use the code and under what terms. >> 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? I have a personal FSF copyright assignment that talks about =E2=80=9Crights= of the copyright owner=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cthe right to enforce the copyrigh= t=E2=80=9D. The FSF probably uses different assignment contracts over time and for different components. (Another advantage of the DCO: the terms are totally transparent.) Thanks, Florian