From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [131.179.128.68]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDE9F385783E for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 19:05:09 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org BDE9F385783E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=cs.ucla.edu Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cs.ucla.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE5F16005E; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:05:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id pnuAimY02LLq; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:05:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A19F1600AD; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:05:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id mH6VS7MtQYv8; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:05:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.9] (cpe-172-91-119-151.socal.res.rr.com [172.91.119.151]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 449EA16005E; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:05:08 -0700 (PDT) To: DJ Delorie Cc: carlos@redhat.com, libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: From: Paul Eggert Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Subject: Re: Seeking input from developers: glibc copyright assignment policy. Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:05:08 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, 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: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 19:05:10 -0000 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=20 is mostly LGPL2-only. That is, they've stuck at LGPL2 on purpose. In contrast, the Glibc library code is explicitly LGPL2.1+ (with=20 emphasis on the "+"). DCO'd contributions to GLibc would be under=20 Glibc's terms, not Linux's. Since Glibc's terms explicitly allow it to=20 be redistributed under later versions of the LGPL, a future Glibc=20 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=20 parts (if unmodified) could still be redistributed separately under=20 LGPLv2.1, just as any other part of glibc (if unmodified) would continue=20 to be redistributable under LGPLv2.1. However, the new glibc library=20 code as a whole could simply move to LGPL4 without any licensing issues=20 presented by the DCO components. Currently this issue is no big deal, because for various reasons Glibc=20 library code is stuck on LGPL2.1 even though LGPL3.0 came out in 2007.=20 But if copyright law changes and an LGPL 4 becomes necessary, the=20 distinction could become important. > Of course, the usual IANAL. Oh likewise, likewise.