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 5EBA5385AC29 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 07:24:57 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 5EBA5385AC29 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-200-6bQ57sTuOBCSppeYIlZY-A-1; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 03:24:55 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 6bQ57sTuOBCSppeYIlZY-A-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60D438042A8; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 07:24:54 +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 738F95D6A8; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 07:24:53 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: Eli Zaretskii via Libc-alpha Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar , Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: Seeking input from developers: glibc copyright assignment policy. References: <4369849.fY2oj7UdlA@omega> <83sg17rrf6.fsf@gnu.org> <83k0misbni.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 09:24:51 +0200 In-Reply-To: <83k0misbni.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii via Libc-alpha's message of "Fri, 25 Jun 2021 09:26:09 +0300") Message-ID: <87pmwaieyk.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 10.5.11.15 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain 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 07:24:58 -0000 * 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. 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. 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. If true, only an influx of additional copyright owners for glibc can preserve the (limited) copyleft nature of glibc. Thanks, Florian