From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23818 invoked by uid 1002); 22 Aug 2003 02:43:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 1333 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2003 02:43:56 -0000 From: Alec Berryman To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20030821224256.GA18@force.stwing.upenn.edu> References: <20030821040916.GE26885@squish.home.loc> <20030821041723.GA2653@cerberus.oppresses.us> <200308211319.40637.luke-jr@gentoo.org> <20030821224256.GA18@force.stwing.upenn.edu> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-wIDnl3UVmwXEB6xDM5uj" Message-Id: <1061520233.2482.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.4 Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 21:43:54 -0500 Subject: [gentoo-dev] Summary: "Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?" X-Archives-Salt: a431fe45-de0f-4bef-8ed3-8234e6d771d7 X-Archives-Hash: caa83e57afca399285446334465b2185 --=-wIDnl3UVmwXEB6xDM5uj Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thread summary: "Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?" (New, and improved! With links to gmane!) Paul started up the thread by asking if ebuild contributors were required to assign their copyright to Gentoo Linux, or if licensing them under the GNU GPL was sufficient. [1] He said later that he is reluctant to give up his copyright. [2] =20 Jon Portnoy was the first to comment that Gentoo Technologies, Inc. needed to own copyright on the ebuilds in order to defend its intellectual property. [3] If someone decided to put a more restrictive the license on an ebuild, he said, GTI would have no legal recourse. =20 Daniel Robbins wrote that the current system of assigning all copyright to Gentoo Technologies, Inc. "allowed us to comply with the GPL and get back to coding." [4] Having multiple copyright holders for GPL code was an advantage, and said it had not caught on in Gentoo yet. He went on to say: "ebuilds should be copyright Gentoo Technologies, Inc. *and* the original author/submitter, with a note for all additional cvs committers. What this does is prevent Gentoo or the original committer or later contributors from changing the license away from the GPL 2 unless all copyright holders agree. This basically makes it practically impossible for code to be hijacked from our tree, or from our users (by me presumably, after going on some kind of evil kick.) This seems near-ideal. It would be helpful if a GPL and copyright expert could review and comment." This e-mail was CC'd to Richard Stallman, but no reply has been posted to the list yet. Without a definitive answer, the thread continued with suggestions and debate. Paul de Vrieze asked that all submitters attach an e-mail address for contacting purposes. [5] Mike Gardiner pointed to bug 16001, where the issue of creating ebuilds from skel.ebuild was causing confusion. [6] John Mylchreest made two important observations: copyright required that GTI be attributed in all ebuilds derived from skel.ebuild [6.1], and that repoman automates copyright in the ebuild headers. [6.2] The summarizer is unfamiliar with repoman; does this automated tool only insert a copyright for Gentoo? After a lengthy discussion with Paul, Jon Portnoy compared Gentoo's position to that of the FSF; in order to contribute code to the GNU project, you must assign them copyright for the FSF's protection. [7]=20 Paul replied that he now understood the situation. [8] Chris Bainbridge, continuing Paul's reserve of the still for-profit GTI controlling copyright, asked what would happen if Gentoo were to lose a court case and be bankrupt; would it then have to sell its intellectual property? [9] Brian Jackson replied that the code in its current form could not be "un-GPL'd." [10] This sentiment was echoed throughout the thread. Luke-Jr saw the only reason for GTI to own the copyright was to be able to change the license on future releases. [11] Jon Portnoy added that written policy would be formed after Daniel had consulted with his lawyer. [12] Please correct me if I've mistaken anything here. If you only read one post, read #4. -Alec Berryman [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/11389 [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/11418 [3] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/11391 [4] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/11417 [5] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/11432 [6] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/11399 [6.1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D16001#c12 [6.2] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D16001#c15 [7] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/11415 [8] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/11419 [9] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/11429 [10] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/11447 [11] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/11434 [12] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/11392 --=-wIDnl3UVmwXEB6xDM5uj Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/RYNpFzqxRt+zZvIRAhTaAJ9RdPCAUzDGCcl/W5VII/0MKlNtIgCbBW4C YY94/4dtmtOxSJJtyUiZlCw= =SnFg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-wIDnl3UVmwXEB6xDM5uj--