3 ms·

>m8r-9yw8a5@mailinator.com "/dev/humancontroller" That one should be fun. An anonymous mail account service.

by tyingq 5y ago

bombcar 5y ago
Those will be the code to replace in the final step.
gruez 5y ago
Looking at the spreadsheet, it looks like his only commit is one that changes a bunch of %lu to %zu? I think that's trivial enough that it's not copyrightable.
- sour-taste 5y ago
  LLVM likely doesn't want to take the risk that a court could find it copyrightable if the author decides to file a lawsuit. My guess is that regardless of the triviality of the change they're requiring these agreements. I am not a lawyer.
  - racingmars 5y ago
    The article talks about options for remaining contributions for which they can't get in touch with the contributor, and says: "We can check if copyright even applies to the particular contribution. Very small contributions may not be covered by copyright, and hence may not need a license agreement."
  - csunbird 5y ago
    It is an anonymous e mail address, there is no way for anyone can actually prove that they are the contributer. not a lawyer, obviously
    - Someone 5y ago
      I think that, depending on circumstances, it _can_ be trivial to prove in court. Examples: - If the contributor can prove they checked that specific mailbox during the period involved (for example from logs, or because the git repo of their system config shows they ran a cron script checking it) - If the contributor can have a few others state in court that they received other messages sent from that account around the time that must have come from them. - if the contributor mailed a few friends saying they contributed to LLVM, giving some details of the changes. I would expect courts to accept either as enough evidence.
kibwen 5y ago
On the other hand, if you can't prove to a court that you wrote the code, then you can't claim to have copyright over the code for the purpose of accusing LLVM of infringing your copyright by relicensing your code. Not that I suspect LLVM to take that kind of risk, but it is an interesting consequence of anonymous contribution.

>m8r-9yw8a5@mailinator.com "/dev/humancontroller" That one should be fun. An anonymous mail account service.

by tyingq 5y ago

>m8r-9yw8a5@mailinator.com "/dev/humancontroller" That one should be fun. An anonymous mail account service.

bombcar 5y ago

Those will be the code to replace in the final step.

gruez 5y ago

Looking at the spreadsheet, it looks like his only commit is one that changes a bunch of %lu to %zu? I think that's trivial enough that it's not copyrightable.

sour-taste 5y ago
LLVM likely doesn't want to take the risk that a court could find it copyrightable if the author decides to file a lawsuit. My guess is that regardless of the triviality of the change they're requiring these agreements. I am not a lawyer.
- racingmars 5y ago
  The article talks about options for remaining contributions for which they can't get in touch with the contributor, and says: "We can check if copyright even applies to the particular contribution. Very small contributions may not be covered by copyright, and hence may not need a license agreement."
- csunbird 5y ago
  It is an anonymous e mail address, there is no way for anyone can actually prove that they are the contributer. not a lawyer, obviously
  - Someone 5y ago
    I think that, depending on circumstances, it _can_ be trivial to prove in court. Examples: - If the contributor can prove they checked that specific mailbox during the period involved (for example from logs, or because the git repo of their system config shows they ran a cron script checking it) - If the contributor can have a few others state in court that they received other messages sent from that account around the time that must have come from them. - if the contributor mailed a few friends saying they contributed to LLVM, giving some details of the changes. I would expect courts to accept either as enough evidence.

kibwen 5y ago

On the other hand, if you can't prove to a court that you wrote the code, then you can't claim to have copyright over the code for the purpose of accusing LLVM of infringing your copyright by relicensing your code. Not that I suspect LLVM to take that kind of risk, but it is an interesting consequence of anonymous contribution.