Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:27394 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751165AbeBZTDn (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Feb 2018 14:03:43 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add LICENSE for Connectathon test suite To: "bfields@fieldses.org" Cc: Trond Myklebust , "sumitgt@google.com" , "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" References: <20180224010702.235739-1-sumitgt@google.com> <1519441996.24645.5.camel@primarydata.com> <1519443337.24645.17.camel@primarydata.com> <86922e14-8764-6582-047c-e5c39746c21c@RedHat.com> <20180225234734.GA12540@fieldses.org> <1519608588.27305.5.camel@primarydata.com> <10fdcb85-66dd-1a13-8a86-735e605dcd0c@RedHat.com> <20180226150641.GH15876@fieldses.org> From: Steve Dickson Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 14:03:41 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180226150641.GH15876@fieldses.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/26/2018 10:06 AM, bfields@fieldses.org wrote: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 09:04:53AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: >> On 02/25/2018 08:29 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote: >>> On Sun, 2018-02-25 at 18:47 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >>>> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 03:41:48PM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: >>>>> On 02/23/2018 10:35 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote: >>>>>> I therefore suspect that if you were to talk to your employer's >>>>>> legal >>>>>> department, they would strongly advise to let these particular >>>>>> sleeping >>>>>> dogs lie. >>>>> >>>>> If the google lawyers are good with this... >>>> >>>> I've seen no evidence that google has any ownership of any of the >>>> Connectathon test suite code. >> Who owns the code now? The same people that owned it way back when? > > Probably. I'm thinking the point is nobody owns the code or cares... > >>>> We need to leave this alone unless we get a much better explanation. >>> >>> If Google does want to contribute, then perhaps they might volunteer to >>> write an Apache licensed and independently developed version of the >>> testsuite? That would break the deadlock that we have today without >>> risking offending any of the original copyright holders, and would >>> allow us to resume contributing further extensions. >>> >> By no means am I a lawyer... Actually I avoid as much as possible ;-) >> But you are saying if Google adds this license they now own the code? > > Basically there's a little bit of land out in the country where we've > been meeting for regular picnics a few times a year. The old owners > were OK with that and the place seems kinda abandoned, so we figure > nobody will mind if we keep holding the picnics. But we're not going to > encourage anyone to build a house there, either. Or start putting up > signs saying what people can or can't do with the property, as if it > were ours. You forgot got to end with... "grasshopper" ;-) I understand your point... but the old owners would not care if we put up a sign to invite more people to the picnic, true? So I guess the main concern is if Google add the license they would own the code and could revoke the use of it down the road... hmm. So since this code has never been licensed, it an never be licensed? steved.