Re: punycode licensing

2019-08-05 Thread Dmitry Belyavsky
Dear Tim, Sorry for the delay with the response. On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 2:44 AM Tim Hudson wrote: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 12:37 AM Dmitry Belyavsky > wrote: > >> Dear Tim, >> >> Formally I am a contributor with a signed CLA. >> I took a code definitely permitting any usage without any

Re: punycode licensing

2019-07-10 Thread Tim Hudson
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 12:37 AM Dmitry Belyavsky 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

Re: punycode licensing

2019-07-10 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
> On Jul 10, 2019, at 10:37 AM, Dmitry Belyavsky wrote: > > 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

Re: punycode licensing

2019-07-10 Thread Dmitry Belyavsky
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

Re: punycode licensing

2019-07-10 Thread Salz, Rich
I will take the hint and stop commenting on this thread.

Re: punycode licensing

2019-07-10 Thread Tim Hudson
Previous assertions that if the license was compatible that we don't need a CLA in order to accept a contribution were incorrect. You are now questioning the entire purpose of contributor agreements and effectively arguing they are superfluous and that our policy should be different. You are (of

Re: punycode licensing

2019-07-10 Thread Salz, Rich
Thank you for the reply. >The license under which the OpenSSL software is provided does not require >"permission" to be sought for use of the software. See

Re: punycode licensing

2019-07-10 Thread Salz, Rich
Thank you for the update. This brings to mind a few additional questions: 1. Does other code which is copyright/licensed under the Apache 2 license also require CLAs? 2. Does other code which is in the public domain also require CLAs? 3. Does OpenSSL expect that anyone using OpenSSL

Re: punycode licensing

2019-07-09 Thread Tim Hudson
On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 1:58 AM Salz, Rich wrote: > Thank you for the update. This brings to mind a few additional questions: > > 1. Does other code which is copyright/licensed under the Apache 2 license also require CLAs? See points 1-3 of previous email. CLAs are required for anything

Re: punycode licensing

2019-07-09 Thread Tim Hudson
>From OMC internal discussions: For all contributions that are made to OpenSSL there are three circumstances that can exist: 1) the contribution is considered trivial - no CLA required 2) the contribution is non-trivial and the copyright is owned by the submitter (or by the company they work for)

Re: punycode licensing

2019-06-24 Thread Short, Todd
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

Re: punycode licensing

2019-06-24 Thread Salz, Rich
* 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

Re: punycode licensing

2019-06-20 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 03:39:10PM +0100, Matt Caswell wrote: > PR 9199 incorporates the C punycode implementation from RFC3492: > > https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/9199 > > The RFC itself has this section in it: > > B. Disclaimer and license > >Regarding this entire document or

punycode licensing

2019-06-20 Thread Matt Caswell
PR 9199 incorporates the C punycode implementation from RFC3492: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/9199 The RFC itself has this section in it: B. Disclaimer and license Regarding this entire document or any portion of it (including the pseudocode and C code), the author makes no