From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from pine.sfconservancy.org (pine.sfconservancy.org [162.242.171.33]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A266C3893C59 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 18:17:22 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org A266C3893C59 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sfconservancy.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sfconservancy.org Received: from localhost (unknown [216.161.86.19]) (Authenticated sender: bkuhn) by pine.sfconservancy.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CDF5EE835; Tue, 6 Jul 2021 18:17:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=sfconservancy.org; s=pine; t=1625595442; bh=ggdDEEBeyVtoXVMtWtRu+TexgoE7Z2bLT6OnBYD+I3k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=B7vLmnitSizQSyvO009EDNqW+AMj+ukvu+m02rong4Juj4QQYY16JAtKTt07esqp7 GRLRopPwZOThctnI7MFVwk4qHbJjtRaIzFzjic2BfTog7KXbU8NvvTLu2KdDG8JbOZ +KaYQlQhrfZzLb9v75nA8EoUOROgJmnnPKWi/HRQz1snehlOR/3xW7yErX/++x2aDE 1NTg/g0473NZRYsCeKR13g5KLXMa7bQzQLzRtOohLOXu0IRb6a/pwHsfgaDDdZcyLs k7tGdviPwH/i/tsoBBp3g/fXFtW6K2r3kVVeX/miDq7sUi9ZnBmLhzofMxqukewpz2 OX2PepBc34H8g== Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2021 11:05:41 -0700 From: "Bradley M. Kuhn" To: Paul Eggert Cc: Carlos O'Donell , Florian Weimer , libc-alpha@sourceware.org, Bruno Haible , "Dmitry V. Levin" Subject: Re: Seeking input from developers: glibc copyright assignment policy. Message-ID: 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <89e0ff1d-2500-3fa4-4565-e6ef30656b95@cs.ucla.edu> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, KAM_SHORT, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, URIBL_RED 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: Tue, 06 Jul 2021 18:17:24 -0000 > On 7/4/21 10:28 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > > It is procedurally easier to use a group name: "The GNU Toolchain Authors" > > but we can honour requests to do otherwise. Paul Eggert wrote: > OK, so the start of the file with some DCOed contributions would look > something like this? > > /* Word-wrapping and line-truncating streams. > Copyright (C) 1997-2022 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > Copyright (C) 2021-2022 The GNU Toolchain Authors. Is the “GNU Toolchain Authors” a entity that legally exists? Only a real entity should be listed in a copyright notice. I talked about this in detail in my earlier post a few days ago: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2021-July/128467.html Quoting the relevant part of that email: >> it's a big mistake to create a copyright notice that lists as the legal >> entity as something that has no legal standing. So, unless you plan to >> form an organization called “the glibc Contributors” [or “GNU Toolchain >> Authors” ], I advise against that notice. [... IANAL and TINLA] As a way to mitigate this problem and get closer to what you're trying to do, I make the case again for moving glibc from a file-by-file copyright inventory mechanism to a single, toplevel file one as I outlined in that post. Conservancy can probably spare resources to help if you'd like to do that. Joseph Myers wrote: >>> with no date specified and not naming individual contributors, following >>> the recommendations at >>> . These recommendations, and similar ones promulgated by the LF and its SPDX project, are considered controversial, and legal experts have not formed consensus around them; by contrast, they are still hotly debated in FOSS legal and licensing circles. I began proposing the toplevel file COPYRIGHT notice mechanism as a compromise that solved many of the concerns on both sides (desire for accurate and complete info vs. the desire for brevity in a file-by-file situation). I don't purport it to be a pancea, but it has some real advantages. There are also political and negative policy outcomes from failing to list every copyright holder; I wrote on this issue, which to add a bit of humor to a dry subject, I dubbed "a Gilligan's Island Copyright Notice": http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/06/28/gilligans-island.html .. the problem has not substantially changed since that blog post. -- Bradley M. Kuhn - he/him Policy Fellow & Hacker-in-Residence at Software Freedom Conservancy ======================================================================== Become a Conservancy Supporter today: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter