bug-wget
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-wget] security risk of unexpected download filenames


From: Solar Designer
Subject: Re: [Bug-wget] security risk of unexpected download filenames
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:53:07 +0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:38:31AM +0200, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010, Solar Designer wrote:
> 
> >As an alternative to copyright assignment to the FSF, perhaps Florian 
> >could simply place his changes in the public domain by unambiguously 
> >stating so on a public mailing list?  I think that would save him time.
> 
> Is that really a sound legal advice?

I am not a lawyer, so it might not be sound legal advice.  The above was
based on what the FSF appears to be OK with:

http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html

"If a contributor is reluctant to sign a copyright assignment for a
change, a copyright disclaimer to put the change in the public domain is
acceptable as well."

Also:

"Small changes can be accepted without a copyright disclaimer or a
copyright assignment on file."

http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Papers.html

"    Would you be willing to assign the copyright to the Free Software
Foundation, so that we could install it in program?

or

    Would you be willing to sign a copyright disclaimer to put this
change in the public domain, so that we can install it in program?

If the contributor then wants more information, you can send per the
file /gd/gnuorg/conditions.text, which explains per options (assign vs.
disclaim) and their consequences."

> I believe Florian is from Europe, and while I'm not a lawer of any kind I
> do know that basically no european country have the same approach to
> "public domain" as the US does. I wouldn't be so sure that waiving your
> rights like that is effective enough.
> 
> In addition to that, there are even lawyers who claim public domain isn't a
> license and thus is _incompatible_ with GPL so it might not even be a
> proper solution in the first place.
> 
> To be clear: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

Yes, I had heard concerns like this, but the above quotes from
gcc.gnu.org and gnu.org do not mention them - so maybe the FSF finds
those concerns groundless?

Public domain is definitely not a license, there's no question about
that.  However, it is compatible with the GPL, which is explicitly
stated on the gnu.org website.

For contributions to some Openwall software, I've been suggesting the
following lately:

http://openwall.info/wiki/john/licensing

Here's the relevant quote:

"This software was written by YOUR NAME <your at e-mail.address> in YEAR.
No copyright is claimed, and the software is hereby placed in the public
domain.  In case this attempt to disclaim copyright and place the
software in the public domain is deemed null and void, then the software
is Copyright © YEAR YOUR NAME and it is hereby released to the general
public under the following terms:

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted."

The last sentence is a heavily cut-down BSD license.  It is obviously
compatible with all versions of GNU GPL (so far) and BSD license revisions.

Alexander



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]