punycode licensing

Short, Todd tshort at akamai.com
Mon Jun 24 11:06:03 UTC 2019

This is the second time, that I'm aware of, that the wording of the CLA has prevented a PR from being accepted.

While this won't help the first case I'm aware of, perhaps there needs to be an exception/special-case in the CLA for code in RFCs, or other similar publications, where the author is basically saying "you can use this". The motive of the author may very well be done at the point of RFC publication, and has no interest in personally submitting the code to every open source project that may want it. As far as the authors are concerned, putting it into the RFC is sufficient.

-Todd Short
// Sent from my iPhone
// "One if by land, two if by sea, three if by the Internet."

On Jun 24, 2019, at 5:42 AM, Salz, Rich <rsalz at akamai.com<mailto:rsalz at akamai.com>> wrote:

  *   Unfortunately, the issue isn't the compatibility of the license - they do indeed look relatively compatible to me - and the discussion on this thread has so far been about that.
  *   However the contributor license agreement requires that the copyright owner grants such permission - it is the fundamental basis of contributor agreements.

Yes, compatibility is important. CLA’s are required only for new code contributed to the project, not for code incorporated from elsewhere.  So if it’s compatible, CLA’s are not required.

At least, that was the position of the project and its former counsel during the first two years of relicensing.  Perhaps the OMC should raise this issue with current counsel if they disagree, but from the public statements on this list, it seems all but one agree.

As an aside, I’ve contacted the author and am having a productive exchange.  Dimitry has seen the emails.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-project/attachments/20190624/123a4a21/attachment.html>

More information about the openssl-project mailing list