Re: Seeking input from developers: glibc copyright assignment policy.

[Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>]

On 6/15/21 11:43 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:

> The Linux kernel is stuck at GPL2
> for this reason; they effectively can't get all the copyright owners to
> agree to change it.

That's because the Linux code is distributed under its own terms, which 
is mostly LGPL2-only. That is, they've stuck at LGPL2 on purpose.

In contrast, the Glibc library code is explicitly LGPL2.1+ (with 
emphasis on the "+"). DCO'd contributions to GLibc would be under 
Glibc's terms, not Linux's. Since Glibc's terms explicitly allow it to 
be redistributed under later versions of the LGPL, a future Glibc 
release could use LGPL4 (should a version 4 ever come out).

You're right that if Glibc switches to a future LGPL4 then Glibc's DCO'd 
parts (if unmodified) could still be redistributed separately under 
LGPLv2.1, just as any other part of glibc (if unmodified) would continue 
to be redistributable under LGPLv2.1. However, the new glibc library 
code as a whole could simply move to LGPL4 without any licensing issues 
presented by the DCO components.

Currently this issue is no big deal, because for various reasons Glibc 
library code is stuck on LGPL2.1 even though LGPL3.0 came out in 2007. 
But if copyright law changes and an LGPL 4 becomes necessary, the 
distinction could become important.

> Of course, the usual IANAL.

Oh likewise, likewise.