On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 12:37 AM Dmitry Belyavsky <beld...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Tim, > > Formally I am a contributor with a signed CLA. > I took a code definitely permitting any usage without any feedback, > slightly modified it (at least by openssl-format-source and splitting > between header and source), and submitted it as my feedback to OpenSSL. > > I still think that it will be a good idea if Adam signs the CLA, but if he > declines, we still have a correct interpretation. > In your ICLA it contains the instructions you have to follow (reproduced here to save you time): 7. Should You wish to submit work that is not Your original creation, You may submit it to the Foundation separately from any Contribution, identifying the complete details of its source and of any license or other restriction (including, but not limited to, related patents, trademarks, and license agreements) of which you are personally aware, and conspicuously marking the work as "Submitted on behalf of a third-party: [named here]". Your current PR at https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/9199 does not actually do this - basically you have to have punycode.c, punycode.h in a separate submission not intermixed with anything else. The reason for not intermixing the code should be pretty clear - as we need to know which parts belong to someone else and aren't covered by your ICLA and which parts are - with no possibility of confusion. You would also need to include the *license* that those files are under which you have not done so - which according to the RFC is: Regarding this entire document or any portion of it (including the pseudocode and C code), the author makes no guarantees and is not responsible for any damage resulting from its use. The author grants irrevocable permission to anyone to use, modify, and distribute it in any way that does not diminish the rights of anyone else to use, modify, and distribute it, provided that redistributed derivative works do not contain misleading author or version information. Derivative works need not be licensed under similar terms. Separately, Rich Salz indicated he had email from the author with respect to being willing to license under the Apache License 2.0 which you would need to get directly from the author (or Rich would need to be the submitter). Only the author (actually copyright owner) can change the license terms of code they create. This isn't about the license. You really should reach out to the author to ask if he is willing to sign an ICLA - that is the normal steps involved. There is nothing particularly onerous in the ICLAs - they are basically there to provide certainty and a legal background for the project to be able to provide the code that it does. You should also note that the license noted in the RFC misses many of the provisions within the ICLA and within the Apache License 2.0 itself and is incompatible with the Apache License 2.0 because it contains restrictions and conditions beyond those stated in this license. After all the work that the project did to be able to move to its current license (and a lot of that work was Rich Salz's efforts) it is important that we maintain the foundation of the clear license terms for the entire code base. Tim.