From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA0961381F3 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:03:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 457E121C025 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:03:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC26AE05EF for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:08:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1C8A33DC77 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:08:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.92 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.92 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.920, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id udJVruB7IsqQ for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:08:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f49.google.com (mail-bk0-f49.google.com [209.85.214.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4CE533DCB8 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:08:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-bk0-f49.google.com with SMTP id jm19so2764483bkc.36 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:08:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Nmqb2xx+Oef4/U8Rjs+zOhUQel78SazChki2mEleAe8=; b=DlHUdSZCfnQweRow6NQGeYnxKq4ONkTC91huvt1NVFLz1ZJb0/1Niz+DkXWYN3EQbt wE94p4whN0LB9KLGHbCB/EVcHXATQN09/Q3ws2vNixFi1/oc1ZfcwLrhERvlDXbRFM/2 2p4Gu0fG59SS6+XyGacMr+QvMsR6HGUk9bH0/0lO33sHDfWzIEoWvziyTU5k0A3drij5 n0YPxtq2wVlWKwhtvgLYskODoqd4DelsXUBPN1TDntVGiS6NskLqlMzObPR25yFEFF2I z2oIT0dJsaysnV1kRFw6uMIIx1evC8wthTLGh14NhuVrKt69fuGy4qJ2qRTpqpnOzP75 uGPw== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo development announcement list X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev-announce@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.11.208 with SMTP id u16mr6217288bku.81.1355756879893; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:07:59 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: gentoo-nfp@lists.gentoo.org Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.12.28 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:07:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:07:59 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: vlcWB9CzIKVAqCf9KLTieU454ns Message-ID: Subject: [gentoo-dev-announce] Soliciting Feedback: Gentoo Copyright Assignments / Licensing From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev-announce@lists.gentoo.org Cc: gentoo-nfp Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: e2d72570-c00c-45ac-ad1c-b6dc7408d2ec X-Archives-Hash: f2f3218e0c57626e18c9cc0086423d06 Announcing once to -dev-announce due to the general importance of this topic to the community, but ALL replies should go to -nfp, or to trustees@ if you must, or to /dev/null if you shouldn't. Before I start, yes, the trustees realize that there are legal issues around copyright assignment in general, and that various workaround exist and may or may not work, such as various contributor licensing agreements that are used by various organizations, especially in Europe. The purpose of this thread isn't really to debate this topic, as it might be moot in any case. The question we would like to get feedback from the Gentoo community on is this: is copyright assignment (or something like it) something Gentoo should even be pursuing, and if so, to what degree? Should we turn away contributions where assignments are not made? Should we aim for a voluntary but encouraged approach as used by KDE e.V.? Should we pursue this for some Gentoo projects but not others (such as for portage (the package manager), and perhaps eclass code, but not ebuilds)? Set aside the mechanics of how this would be accomplished for now. I don't think that this is likely to be the source of any great controversy, though if we pursue this we will no doubt solicit comments on any proposals. Likewise, set aside any issues pertaining to history of what the status quo actually is. The larger issue is where Gentoo wants to be with regard to "ownership" (or whatever the appropriate term is) of its code. Where we are going is more important than how we get there. The main arguments for owning copyright of something would be: 1. Legal simplicity 2. Ability to re-license (obviously in accordance with the social contract, and this could even be enforced with a model like the FSFe's FLA) 3. Standing to pursue copyleft license violations The main arguments for not owning copyright of something would be: 1. Some potential contributors might refuse to contribute 2. Ability to merge license-compatible code without needing the cooperation of its author There are numerous details to be worked out either way, and we don't need to settle those in advance. Feedback from any member of the Gentoo community (loosely defined) is welcome. If anybody has STRONG feelings on this matter, please be sure to voice them either in public or in private, as I can't guarantee that there will be another opportunity to do so. For those wondering where this is going: Right now the Foundation is soliciting info from other organizations and will be soliciting legal advice regarding how we might implement whatever course of action we choose to take. If community consensus seems to be obvious in the replies to this email we may very well form concrete proposals and put them out for comment before enacting new policy. If consensus is not clear we may seek further input in the form of binding or non-binding votes from the Foundation membership. Obviously our goal isn't to stir up a hornet's nest, so assume that the Trustees will use reasonable discretion. For the Trustees (who are welcome to chime in with any questions/nuances I missed), Richard Freeman