[gentoo-dev] Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[gentoo-dev] Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Paul]

	Hi;

	A long while back, I asked if it was a requirement
for ebuild submiters to assign copyright. I was told
no, GPL license was entirely sufficient. I think this has
changed, or was untrue.
	Now, Ive already given up on the submission
process, but I _am_ curious about this policy, as I
havent yet given up on Gentoo itself.

Paul
set@pobox.com

(two ancient ebuilds I submitted have 'recently' received
feedback, requesting reassignment of copyright. Im
not referencing them, as one touches on some of the issues
that caused me to punt on contributing ebuilds, and I
really dont care to discuss that.)


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 625 bytes --]

On Thursday 21 August 2003 00:09, Paul wrote:
> 	A long while back, I asked if it was a requirement
> for ebuild submiters to assign copyright. I was told
> no, GPL license was entirely sufficient. I think this has
> changed, or was untrue.

afaik, it's up to each individual dev atm ... personally i just make my own 
ebuilds if a submitter copyrights anything other than Gentoo ... that way 
they cant say i stole it :)

> 	Now, Ive already given up on the submission
> process, but I _am_ curious about this policy, as I
> havent yet given up on Gentoo itself.

not sure if it was made in policy ...
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Jon Portnoy]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:14:48AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
> On Thursday 21 August 2003 00:09, Paul wrote:
> > 	A long while back, I asked if it was a requirement
> > for ebuild submiters to assign copyright. I was told
> > no, GPL license was entirely sufficient. I think this has
> > changed, or was untrue.
> 
> afaik, it's up to each individual dev atm ... personally i just make my own 
> ebuilds if a submitter copyrights anything other than Gentoo ... that way 
> they cant say i stole it :)
> 
> > 	Now, Ive already given up on the submission
> > process, but I _am_ curious about this policy, as I
> > havent yet given up on Gentoo itself.
> 
> not sure if it was made in policy ...
> -mike

It was supposed to be discussed after Daniel consulted with his lawyer 
(about dual copyright ownership)
before becoming written policy. I don't think we have any results yet. 
In the meantime, I think we should stick to what we know is legally safe 
(assign all copyrights to Gentoo).

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Jon Portnoy]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:17AM -0400, Paul wrote:
> 	Hi;
> 
> 	A long while back, I asked if it was a requirement
> for ebuild submiters to assign copyright. I was told
> no, GPL license was entirely sufficient. I think this has
> changed, or was untrue.
> 	Now, Ive already given up on the submission
> process, but I _am_ curious about this policy, as I
> havent yet given up on Gentoo itself.
> 
> Paul
> set@pobox.com

I would be very interested in hearing your issues with ebuild 
submission, if you'd like to contact me privately about it.

With regards to copyrights, it's necessary for us to own copyright on 
ebuilds in order to defend our intellectual property. If we (Gentoo 
Technologies) don't own copyright on ebuilds (and other pieces of 
Gentoo), we have no legal leg to stand on if someone (for example) 
attempts to put a more restrictive license on that piece of intellectual 
property.

In short: if we don't own copyright, we can't defend ourselves.

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Troy Dack]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:17AM -0400, Paul wrote:
>> 	Hi;
>>
>> 	A long while back, I asked if it was a requirement
>> for ebuild submiters to assign copyright. I was told
>> no, GPL license was entirely sufficient. I think this has
>> changed, or was untrue.
>> 	Now, Ive already given up on the submission
>> process, but I _am_ curious about this policy, as I
>> havent yet given up on Gentoo itself.
>>
>> Paul
>> set@pobox.com
>
> I would be very interested in hearing your issues with ebuild
> submission, if you'd like to contact me privately about it.
>
> With regards to copyrights, it's necessary for us to own copyright on
> ebuilds in order to defend our intellectual property. If we (Gentoo
> Technologies) don't own copyright on ebuilds (and other pieces of
> Gentoo), we have no legal leg to stand on if someone (for example)
> attempts to put a more restrictive license on that piece of intellectual
> property.
>
> In short: if we don't own copyright, we can't defend ourselves.

[Note I am not versed in the many nuances of copyright law]

I can understand this position, however I think some people feel that this
is in some way removing or diminishing the fact that they have made a
contribution to Gentoo.

Would it not be possible for copyright to be assigned to Gentoo and the
author of the ebuild?

I believe that this has been discussed previously on this list (when I get
a chance I'll search my archive) and that there was an agreement reached
between Gentoo and an educational institution on this very matter.

- --
    Troy Dack                       <tad@gentoo.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/RE+v/YkW+U2QvjwRAouDAKCg69YyEQDMohXzM4KVgv85ydGibgCfUDtB
yuk3WXLckPJrML86Rvs32pU=
=KDXJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Jon Portnoy]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 02:51:13PM +1000, Troy Dack wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:17AM -0400, Paul wrote:
> >> 	Hi;
> >>
> >> 	A long while back, I asked if it was a requirement
> >> for ebuild submiters to assign copyright. I was told
> >> no, GPL license was entirely sufficient. I think this has
> >> changed, or was untrue.
> >> 	Now, Ive already given up on the submission
> >> process, but I _am_ curious about this policy, as I
> >> havent yet given up on Gentoo itself.
> >>
> >> Paul
> >> set@pobox.com
> >
> > I would be very interested in hearing your issues with ebuild
> > submission, if you'd like to contact me privately about it.
> >
> > With regards to copyrights, it's necessary for us to own copyright on
> > ebuilds in order to defend our intellectual property. If we (Gentoo
> > Technologies) don't own copyright on ebuilds (and other pieces of
> > Gentoo), we have no legal leg to stand on if someone (for example)
> > attempts to put a more restrictive license on that piece of intellectual
> > property.
> >
> > In short: if we don't own copyright, we can't defend ourselves.
> 
> [Note I am not versed in the many nuances of copyright law]
> 
> I can understand this position, however I think some people feel that this
> is in some way removing or diminishing the fact that they have made a
> contribution to Gentoo.
> 

Why? Attribution is given in ChangeLogs as per policy.

> Would it not be possible for copyright to be assigned to Gentoo and the
> author of the ebuild?

That's what we needed information from Daniel's lawyer about.

> 
> I believe that this has been discussed previously on this list (when I get
> a chance I'll search my archive) and that there was an agreement reached
> between Gentoo and an educational institution on this very matter.
> 

Was that agreement actually reached? I have been away from development 
and not very involved for a couple weeks.

CC'ing Daniel for more information.

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3062 bytes --]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 01:09:25AM -0400, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > Would it not be possible for copyright to be assigned to Gentoo and the
> > author of the ebuild?
> 
> That's what we needed information from Daniel's lawyer about.

I've been trying to get people to keep their names in the copyright line for
over a year, but no one has really started doing it. To my knowledge, it is
better to have multiple official copyright holders for GPL code than just a
single copyright holder. I would like all our ebuilds to have a copyright
like this:

# Copyright 2003 Gentoo Technologies, Joe User, and others (see cvs
# changelog.) Distributed under the GPL version 2.

I don't see why this would be a problem for anyone, and makes a lot more
sense than what we are doing now. 

What we are doing now began way back when we figured out that slapping a
"Copyright 2000 Gentoo Technologies, Inc." allowed us to comply with the GPL
and get back to coding. That's all there is to our current "policy," folks.
I am very much hoping that people will start using shared copyrights soon.
I think it's very bad to continue using the single "Copyright Gentoo" one,
and hope that some developers will start doing this. This is one trend that
I can't start, since all the work I do is under the Gentoo Technologies,
Inc. name. While I know that I'm not going to rip Gentoo off, the primary
benefit to me is that it quells those who enjoy being paranoid about my
intentions.

The rules should be:

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.

> > I believe that this has been discussed previously on this list (when I get
> > a chance I'll search my archive) and that there was an agreement reached
> > between Gentoo and an educational institution on this very matter.
> 
> Was that agreement actually reached? I have been away from development 
> and not very involved for a couple weeks.

I need to contact them; haven't had time to follow up after LWE. After
thinking a bit about this, it's probably best that I ask Richard Stallman
what he recommends since he is likely to be much more versed in the ins and
outs of this kind of thing than the typical IP lawyer who is not very
familiar with the GPL. I'll cc this email to Richard and see what he says.

Richard, your input would certainly be welcome, and I can forward all
replies you send me to the gentoo-dev list (gentoo-dev is subscriber post
only.)

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins
Chief Architect, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 367 bytes --]

On Thursday 21 August 2003 09:00, Daniel Robbins wrote:

There is one aditional point that I think we should request of the other 
copyright owners, that is there should be contact information included in 
some way. An email address is enough for that.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Mike Gardiner]

> [Note I am not versed in the many nuances of copyright law]
> 
> I can understand this position, however I think some people feel that this
> is in some way removing or diminishing the fact that they have made a
> contribution to Gentoo.
> 
> Would it not be possible for copyright to be assigned to Gentoo and the
> author of the ebuild?
> 
> I believe that this has been discussed previously on this list (when I get
> a chance I'll search my archive) and that there was an agreement reached
> between Gentoo and an educational institution on this very matter.
> 
> - --
>     Troy Dack                       <tad@gentoo.org>

It's interesting that this has come up on the list, considering I saw
this on my buglist yesterday:

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16001

and asked for comments by those with more experience/understanding about
the copyright situation than myself.

In a lot of ways, for users or contributors, I think it boils down to
credit and acknowledgement, rather than as a legal hold or similar. The
standard method for giving credit for ebuilds submissions, that I was
introduced to at least, was to ensure the contributor was acknowledged
in the ChangeLog corresponding with the first commit of the package.
Something simple along the lines of,

"Thanks to Some User <user@email> for the ebuild contribution". 

I guess to users this doesnt seem as concrete an acknowledgement as a
line like,

# Copyright 2003 (c) Some User

in the actual ebuild script.

In the comments for the bug I commented on incorrect headers as a
syntactical problem with the script, without consideration for the
actual copyright ownership, which, as it turned out, was a much bigger
issue than fixing 'simple' problems with the ebuild.

Thanks,
Mike

// apologies for waffle.




--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Paul]

Mike Gardiner <obz@gentoo.org>, on Thu Aug 21, 2003 [01:11:39 PM] said:

> In a lot of ways, for users or contributors, I think it boils down to
> credit and acknowledgement, rather than as a legal hold or similar. The
> standard method for giving credit for ebuilds submissions, that I was
> introduced to at least, was to ensure the contributor was acknowledged
> in the ChangeLog corresponding with the first commit of the package.
> Something simple along the lines of,
> 
> "Thanks to Some User <user@email> for the ebuild contribution". 
> 
> I guess to users this doesnt seem as concrete an acknowledgement as a
> line like,
> 
> # Copyright 2003 (c) Some User

	Hi;

	Speaking for myself, its not an atribution thing at all.
I have no problem contributing to the kernel without any mention
of me at all, or any of the many other projects I have submited
stuff to.... its more an issue of why should I surrender rights
to an entity, which may be currently piloted by paladins, but
whose future I have no control over, without any clear
justification.

Paul
set@pobox.com

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Mike Gardiner]

> [Note I am not versed in the many nuances of copyright law]
> 
> I can understand this position, however I think some people feel that this
> is in some way removing or diminishing the fact that they have made a
> contribution to Gentoo.
> 
> Would it not be possible for copyright to be assigned to Gentoo and the
> author of the ebuild?
> 
> I believe that this has been discussed previously on this list (when I get
> a chance I'll search my archive) and that there was an agreement reached
> between Gentoo and an educational institution on this very matter.
> 
> - --
>     Troy Dack                       <tad@gentoo.org>

It's interesting that this has come up on the list, considering I saw
this on my buglist yesterday:

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16001

and asked for comments by those with more experience/understanding about
the copyright situation than myself.

In a lot of ways, for users or contributors, I think it boils down to
credit and acknowledgement, rather than as a legal hold or similar. The
standard method for giving credit for ebuilds submissions, that I was
introduced to at least, was to ensure the contributor was acknowledged
in the ChangeLog corresponding with the first commit of the package.
Something simple along the lines of,

"Thanks to Some User <user@email> for the ebuild contribution". 

I guess to users this doesnt seem as concrete an acknowledgement as a
line like,

# Copyright 2003 (c) Some User

in the actual ebuild script.

In the comments for the bug I commented on incorrect headers as a
syntactical problem with the script, without consideration for the
actual copyright ownership, which, as it turned out, was a much bigger
issue than fixing 'simple' problems with the ebuild.

Thanks,
Mike

// apologies for waffle.




--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Paul]

Jon Portnoy <avenj@gentoo.org>, on Thu Aug 21, 2003 [12:17:23 AM] said:

> With regards to copyrights, it's necessary for us to own copyright on 
> ebuilds in order to defend our intellectual property. If we (Gentoo 
> Technologies) don't own copyright on ebuilds (and other pieces of 
> Gentoo), we have no legal leg to stand on if someone (for example) 
> attempts to put a more restrictive license on that piece of intellectual 
> property.
> 
> In short: if we don't own copyright, we can't defend ourselves.
> 
> -- 
> Jon Portnoy
> avenj/irc.freenode.net

	Hi;

	Thankyou for your kind, swift response;

	Maybe its my paranoia, but while I _might_ be willing
to assign copyright to the FSF, Im not sure a company with
a distribution deserves such trust. Witness Caldera...

	Once you have the GPL, you have a license. I could
relicense an ebuild to, say some *BSD based thing, or some
commercial spin-off if I wanted (if I still hold copyright),
but that doesnt affect "Gentoo Technologies, Inc." right
to use the ebuild under the GPL. It just affects their ability
to completely control the 'intellectual property'.

	In short, Im hearing that its protective leverage
for Gentoo Technologies, Inc., an entity whose status I am not
currently sure of...

Paul
set@pobox.com

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Jon Portnoy]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 01:16:37AM -0400, Paul wrote:
> Jon Portnoy <avenj@gentoo.org>, on Thu Aug 21, 2003 [12:17:23 AM] said:
> 
> > With regards to copyrights, it's necessary for us to own copyright on 
> > ebuilds in order to defend our intellectual property. If we (Gentoo 
> > Technologies) don't own copyright on ebuilds (and other pieces of 
> > Gentoo), we have no legal leg to stand on if someone (for example) 
> > attempts to put a more restrictive license on that piece of intellectual 
> > property.
> > 
> > In short: if we don't own copyright, we can't defend ourselves.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jon Portnoy
> > avenj/irc.freenode.net
> 
> 	Hi;
> 
> 	Thankyou for your kind, swift response;
> 
> 	Maybe its my paranoia, but while I _might_ be willing
> to assign copyright to the FSF, Im not sure a company with
> a distribution deserves such trust. Witness Caldera...

Maybe, but since we license it under the GPL, on the off chance that 
somebody suddenly inherited all of Gentoo's intellectual property and 
wanted to relicense it, old versions would still be under the GPL.

> 
> 	Once you have the GPL, you have a license. I could
> relicense an ebuild to, say some *BSD based thing, or some
> commercial spin-off if I wanted (if I still hold copyright),
> but that doesnt affect "Gentoo Technologies, Inc." right
> to use the ebuild under the GPL. It just affects their ability
> to completely control the 'intellectual property'.

I'm talking about situations where a fork or some other entity wants to 
change the license: legally speaking, they _cannot_ change the license 
unless they're the copyright holder. If the contributor owns the 
copyright rather than Gentoo, only the contributor can begin legal 
proceedings against the infringing entity.

I'm specifically not referring to situations where a contributor wants 
future versions of their ebuilds to be released under a different 
license.

> 
> 	In short, Im hearing that its protective leverage
> for Gentoo Technologies, Inc., an entity whose status I am not
> currently sure of...
> 
> Paul
> set@pobox.com

Daniel has repeatedly publicly committed to going nonprofit, but going 
from a for-profit to a non-profit is a time-consuming process.

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Paul]

Jon Portnoy <avenj@gentoo.org>, on Thu Aug 21, 2003 [01:46:16 AM] said:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 01:16:37AM -0400, Paul wrote:

> > 	Maybe its my paranoia, but while I _might_ be willing
> > to assign copyright to the FSF, Im not sure a company with
> > a distribution deserves such trust. Witness Caldera...
> 
> Maybe, but since we license it under the GPL, on the off chance that 
> somebody suddenly inherited all of Gentoo's intellectual property and 
> wanted to relicense it, old versions would still be under the GPL.
> 
> > 
> > 	Once you have the GPL, you have a license. I could
> > relicense an ebuild to, say some *BSD based thing, or some
> > commercial spin-off if I wanted (if I still hold copyright),
> > but that doesnt affect "Gentoo Technologies, Inc." right
> > to use the ebuild under the GPL. It just affects their ability
> > to completely control the 'intellectual property'.
> 
> I'm talking about situations where a fork or some other entity wants to 
> change the license: legally speaking, they _cannot_ change the license 
> unless they're the copyright holder. If the contributor owns the 
> copyright rather than Gentoo, only the contributor can begin legal 
> proceedings against the infringing entity.
> 

	Hi;

	Im having a hard time reconciling your first paragraph
with the second. First you point out that my rights under
the GPL wouldn't be affected by someone aquiring Gentoos IP,
then you claim Gentoo needs be able to protect against 'license
changing'. Probably you mean license violation?
	If, say I had an ebuild in there, with my copyright
held by me, and someone started using it in some way that
violated my license (the GPL), then yes, I would be the one
who would have to take legal action. At that point, I have
choices. I could, for example, assign copyright to the FSF,
or Gentoo. I could ignore it, etc. I couldnt (as you
state) take away anyones ability to use it under the terms
of the GPL.
	If I assign copyright to Gentoo, I have no more
choice. Someone could aquire all their 'IP', and make all the
ebuilds future modifications closed and proprietary. 
	In other words, if Gentoo has the copyright, they
have the choices about taking legal action, or inaction.
It gives them a product they have control over. I am
unconvinced that this is ultimately in the users benifit.

Paul
set@pobox.com


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Jon Portnoy]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 02:41:09AM -0400, Paul wrote:
> Jon Portnoy <avenj@gentoo.org>, on Thu Aug 21, 2003 [01:46:16 AM] said:
> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 01:16:37AM -0400, Paul wrote:
> 
> > > 	Maybe its my paranoia, but while I _might_ be willing
> > > to assign copyright to the FSF, Im not sure a company with
> > > a distribution deserves such trust. Witness Caldera...
> > 
> > Maybe, but since we license it under the GPL, on the off chance that 
> > somebody suddenly inherited all of Gentoo's intellectual property and 
> > wanted to relicense it, old versions would still be under the GPL.
> > 
> > > 
> > > 	Once you have the GPL, you have a license. I could
> > > relicense an ebuild to, say some *BSD based thing, or some
> > > commercial spin-off if I wanted (if I still hold copyright),
> > > but that doesnt affect "Gentoo Technologies, Inc." right
> > > to use the ebuild under the GPL. It just affects their ability
> > > to completely control the 'intellectual property'.
> > 
> > I'm talking about situations where a fork or some other entity wants to 
> > change the license: legally speaking, they _cannot_ change the license 
> > unless they're the copyright holder. If the contributor owns the 
> > copyright rather than Gentoo, only the contributor can begin legal 
> > proceedings against the infringing entity.
> > 
> 
> 	Hi;
> 
> 	Im having a hard time reconciling your first paragraph
> with the second. First you point out that my rights under
> the GPL wouldn't be affected by someone aquiring Gentoos IP,
> then you claim Gentoo needs be able to protect against 'license
> changing'. Probably you mean license violation?



> 	If, say I had an ebuild in there, with my copyright
> held by me, and someone started using it in some way that
> violated my license (the GPL), then yes, I would be the one
> who would have to take legal action. At that point, I have
> choices. I could, for example, assign copyright to the FSF,
> or Gentoo. I could ignore it, etc. I couldnt (as you
> state) take away anyones ability to use it under the terms
> of the GPL.
> 	If I assign copyright to Gentoo, I have no more
> choice. Someone could aquire all their 'IP', and make all the
> ebuilds future modifications closed and proprietary. 
> 	In other words, if Gentoo has the copyright, they
> have the choices about taking legal action, or inaction.
> It gives them a product they have control over. I am
> unconvinced that this is ultimately in the users benifit.
> 

It's for our benefit. Otherwise, we're screwed.

Frankly, sometimes we have to do things to protect ourselves, even if 
that means that when you contribute something to us, the contributed 
piece that becomes a part of Gentoo belongs in an intellectual property 
sense to Gentoo. You'll find the same situation if you want to 
contribute code to GNU projects: copyright must be assigned to the FSF 
so they can defend themselves.

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Paul]

Jon Portnoy <avenj@gentoo.org>, on Thu Aug 21, 2003 [02:50:01 AM] said:
> 
> It's for our benefit. Otherwise, we're screwed.
> 
> Frankly, sometimes we have to do things to protect ourselves, even if 
> that means that when you contribute something to us, the contributed 
> piece that becomes a part of Gentoo belongs in an intellectual property 
> sense to Gentoo. You'll find the same situation if you want to 
> contribute code to GNU projects: copyright must be assigned to the FSF 
> so they can defend themselves.
> 
> -- 
> Jon Portnoy
> avenj/irc.freenode.net

	Hi;

	Thankyou for you candor.
	I am aware of RMS and FSF policies regarding GNU, and
alluded to it. However, I dont see that the situation is
analogous. The FSF isnt collecting copyrights to defend itself,
but the GPL and the body of work it protects. Gentoo
Technologies, Inc.  can only be assumed to be interested in
itself as a business enterprise. And even given the cred the FSF
has built over decades, many people are unwilling to contribute
to them under their copyright assignment conditions.
	Anyway, I think my question has been answered in
spades. Gentoo Technologies, Inc. has every right to set
requirements for contribution; I feel I now understand them
better.

Paul
set@pobox.com

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Chris Bainbridge]

On Thursday 21 August 2003 07:50, Jon Portnoy wrote:
>
> It's for our benefit. Otherwise, we're screwed.
>
> Frankly, sometimes we have to do things to protect ourselves, even if
> that means that when you contribute something to us, the contributed
> piece that becomes a part of Gentoo belongs in an intellectual property
> sense to Gentoo. You'll find the same situation if you want to
> contribute code to GNU projects: copyright must be assigned to the FSF
> so they can defend themselves.

Just to chip in.. it seems a dangerous policy to advocate all of the 
copyrights being held in one place. Even if you trust Gentoo Technologies 
Inc. do you trust everyone else that has financial dealings with this 
company? Do you trust that no one in the world will sue Gentoo Tech. Inc., 
say for patent infringement, or maybe claim a contract dispute and say that 
they own xxx lines of already contributed code? 

All it takes is for GTI to lose one court case and be bankrupted and it will 
be obligated to sell its assets to pay court costs and fines. Now any code 
where the copyright is solely held by GTI can have its license changed to a 
closed, non-free one, and at that point a proprietory non-free fork of Gentoo 
can be made. The GPL was explicitly designed to prevent this but when 
copyright is assigned you must make clear in the contract that the code can 
never be unGPLed. 

I am unclear how copyright assignment is being done at the moment? I have 
never been asked to assign copyright for any contributed ebuilds, and I have 
never signed a contract with GTI, as far as I am concerned I still have 
copyright on those GPL ebuilds.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 680 bytes --]

On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 06:14, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> I am unclear how copyright assignment is being done at the moment? I have 
> never been asked to assign copyright for any contributed ebuilds, and I have 
> never signed a contract with GTI, as far as I am concerned I still have 
> copyright on those GPL ebuilds.

As I see it, if you only had a Copyright GTI in your header, then you
gave up your copyright.  In fact, I have done this myself on quite a few
ebuilds I submitted before becoming a developer.  If this is incorrect,
please set me straight, but I believe that would be why you have no been
contacted.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Jon Portnoy]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 11:14:48AM +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> On Thursday 21 August 2003 07:50, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> >
> > It's for our benefit. Otherwise, we're screwed.
> >
> > Frankly, sometimes we have to do things to protect ourselves, even if
> > that means that when you contribute something to us, the contributed
> > piece that becomes a part of Gentoo belongs in an intellectual property
> > sense to Gentoo. You'll find the same situation if you want to
> > contribute code to GNU projects: copyright must be assigned to the FSF
> > so they can defend themselves.
> 
> Just to chip in.. it seems a dangerous policy to advocate all of the 
> copyrights being held in one place. Even if you trust Gentoo Technologies 
> Inc. do you trust everyone else that has financial dealings with this 
> company? Do you trust that no one in the world will sue Gentoo Tech. Inc., 
> say for patent infringement, or maybe claim a contract dispute and say that 
> they own xxx lines of already contributed code? 
> 
> All it takes is for GTI to lose one court case and be bankrupted and it will 
> be obligated to sell its assets to pay court costs and fines. Now any code 
> where the copyright is solely held by GTI can have its license changed to a 
> closed, non-free one, and at that point a proprietory non-free fork of Gentoo 
> can be made. The GPL was explicitly designed to prevent this but when 
> copyright is assigned you must make clear in the contract that the code can 
> never be unGPLed. 

The GPL already states that.

> 
> I am unclear how copyright assignment is being done at the moment? I have 
> never been asked to assign copyright for any contributed ebuilds, and I have 
> never signed a contract with GTI, as far as I am concerned I still have 
> copyright on those GPL ebuilds.
> 
> 

Only if you changed the copyright header to mention your name rather 
than Gentoo Technologies.

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Chris Bainbridge]

On Thursday 21 August 2003 18:56, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 11:14:48AM +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > On Thursday 21 August 2003 07:50, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > > It's for our benefit. Otherwise, we're screwed.
> > >
> > > Frankly, sometimes we have to do things to protect ourselves, even if
> > > that means that when you contribute something to us, the contributed
> > > piece that becomes a part of Gentoo belongs in an intellectual property
> > > sense to Gentoo. You'll find the same situation if you want to
> > > contribute code to GNU projects: copyright must be assigned to the FSF
> > > so they can defend themselves.
> >
> > Just to chip in.. it seems a dangerous policy to advocate all of the
> > copyrights being held in one place. Even if you trust Gentoo Technologies
> > Inc. do you trust everyone else that has financial dealings with this
> > company? Do you trust that no one in the world will sue Gentoo Tech.
> > Inc., say for patent infringement, or maybe claim a contract dispute and
> > say that they own xxx lines of already contributed code?
> >
> > All it takes is for GTI to lose one court case and be bankrupted and it
> > will be obligated to sell its assets to pay court costs and fines. Now
> > any code where the copyright is solely held by GTI can have its license
> > changed to a closed, non-free one, and at that point a proprietory
> > non-free fork of Gentoo can be made. The GPL was explicitly designed to
> > prevent this but when copyright is assigned you must make clear in the
> > contract that the code can never be unGPLed.
>
> The GPL already states that.

That is incorrect. See for example the Sistina GFS fiasco. GFS was a GPL 
product which had contributor copyrights assigned to Sistina. Then they 
decided to go closed source, taking all the user contributions with them.

> > I am unclear how copyright assignment is being done at the moment? I have
> > never been asked to assign copyright for any contributed ebuilds, and I
> > have never signed a contract with GTI, as far as I am concerned I still
> > have copyright on those GPL ebuilds.
>
> Only if you changed the copyright header to mention your name rather
> than Gentoo Technologies.

Hmmm, I thought that copyright notice only applied to the header ;-) 


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Brian Jackson]

On Thursday 21 August 2003 01:48 pm, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > The GPL already states that.
>
> That is incorrect. See for example the Sistina GFS fiasco. GFS was a GPL
> product which had contributor copyrights assigned to Sistina. Then they
> decided to go closed source, taking all the user contributions with them.

The original code (from before they closed the source) is still available 
GPL'ed, even from Sistina's own ftp server. The code was taken up by an 
opensource project, and lives on in the form of OpenGFS. Besides there is a 
big difference betweeen Sistina and Gentoo.

--Brian Jackson

>
> > > I am unclear how copyright assignment is being done at the moment? I
> > > have never been asked to assign copyright for any contributed ebuilds,
> > > and I have never signed a contract with GTI, as far as I am concerned I
> > > still have copyright on those GPL ebuilds.
> >
> > Only if you changed the copyright header to mention your name rather
> > than Gentoo Technologies.
>
> Hmmm, I thought that copyright notice only applied to the header ;-)
>
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Jon Portnoy]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 07:48:16PM +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> On Thursday 21 August 2003 18:56, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 11:14:48AM +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> > > On Thursday 21 August 2003 07:50, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > > > It's for our benefit. Otherwise, we're screwed.
> > > >
> > > > Frankly, sometimes we have to do things to protect ourselves, even if
> > > > that means that when you contribute something to us, the contributed
> > > > piece that becomes a part of Gentoo belongs in an intellectual property
> > > > sense to Gentoo. You'll find the same situation if you want to
> > > > contribute code to GNU projects: copyright must be assigned to the FSF
> > > > so they can defend themselves.
> > >
> > > Just to chip in.. it seems a dangerous policy to advocate all of the
> > > copyrights being held in one place. Even if you trust Gentoo Technologies
> > > Inc. do you trust everyone else that has financial dealings with this
> > > company? Do you trust that no one in the world will sue Gentoo Tech.
> > > Inc., say for patent infringement, or maybe claim a contract dispute and
> > > say that they own xxx lines of already contributed code?
> > >
> > > All it takes is for GTI to lose one court case and be bankrupted and it
> > > will be obligated to sell its assets to pay court costs and fines. Now
> > > any code where the copyright is solely held by GTI can have its license
> > > changed to a closed, non-free one, and at that point a proprietory
> > > non-free fork of Gentoo can be made. The GPL was explicitly designed to
> > > prevent this but when copyright is assigned you must make clear in the
> > > contract that the code can never be unGPLed.
> >
> > The GPL already states that.
> 
> That is incorrect. See for example the Sistina GFS fiasco. GFS was a GPL 
> product which had contributor copyrights assigned to Sistina. Then they 
> decided to go closed source, taking all the user contributions with them.
> 

Sorry, perhaps I misinterpreted. You can relicense it, however you can't 
retroactively revoke the GPL; i.e., older versions that were under the 
GPL stay under the GPL.

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Paul]

Chris Bainbridge <C.J.Bainbridge@ed.ac.uk>, on Thu Aug 21, 2003 [11:14:48 AM] said:
> 
> I am unclear how copyright assignment is being done at the moment? I have 
> never been asked to assign copyright for any contributed ebuilds, and I have 
> never signed a contract with GTI, as far as I am concerned I still have 
> copyright on those GPL ebuilds.
> 

	Hi;

	In my case, I submitted ebuilds without any explicit
Copyright notice. Devs made a minor change or two, and slapped on
the GTI copyright. After asking, I was assured that I could
copyright my own ebuilds, which I started doing. Im not sure if
any made it in-- just recently, a few ebuilds from the 4 digit
bug days with my copyrights on them were re-examined, and I was
asked to change the copyright as a precondition to inclusion. I
declined, and requested the bugs be closed.

Paul
set@pobox.com

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 922 bytes --]

On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 00:45, Paul wrote:
> 	Hi;
> 
> 	In my case, I submitted ebuilds without any explicit
> Copyright notice. Devs made a minor change or two, and slapped on
> the GTI copyright. After asking, I was assured that I could
> copyright my own ebuilds, which I started doing. Im not sure if
> any made it in-- just recently, a few ebuilds from the 4 digit
> bug days with my copyrights on them were re-examined, and I was
> asked to change the copyright as a precondition to inclusion. I
> declined, and requested the bugs be closed.

It appears the requester was incorrect and should have requested that
you *also* assign copyright to GTI.  This would leave both GTI and
yourself as copyright holders on the ebuild, allowing both parties to
uphold their stake in the ebuild, while not allowing GTI sole control of
your intellectual property.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2343 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 01:16:37 -0400
Paul <set@pobox.com> wrote:


> 	In short, Im hearing that its protective leverage
> for Gentoo Technologies, Inc., an entity whose status I am not
> currently sure of...

See this thread, here is the quote for you people who have killfiled
drobbins@gentoo.org:


I've been trying to get people to keep their names in the copyright line
for over a year, but no one has really started doing it. To my
knowledge, it is better to have multiple official copyright holders for
GPL code than just a single copyright holder. I would like all our
ebuilds to have a copyright like this:

# Copyright 2003 Gentoo Technologies, Joe User, and others (see cvs
# changelog.) Distributed under the GPL version 2.

I don't see why this would be a problem for anyone, and makes a lot more
sense than what we are doing now. 

What we are doing now began way back when we figured out that slapping a
"Copyright 2000 Gentoo Technologies, Inc." allowed us to comply with the
GPL and get back to coding. That's all there is to our current "policy,"
folks. I am very much hoping that people will start using shared
copyrights soon. I think it's very bad to continue using the single
"Copyright Gentoo" one, and hope that some developers will start doing
this. This is one trend that I can't start, since all the work I do is
under the Gentoo Technologies, Inc. name. While I know that I'm not
going to rip Gentoo off, the primary benefit to me is that it quells
those who enjoy being paranoid about my intentions.

The rules should be:

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.

---------------------------------------------------------

//Spider



-- 
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 820 bytes --]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:17:23AM -0400, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> With regards to copyrights, it's necessary for us to own copyright on 
> ebuilds in order to defend our intellectual property. If we (Gentoo 
> Technologies) don't own copyright on ebuilds (and other pieces of 
> Gentoo), we have no legal leg to stand on if someone (for example) 
> attempts to put a more restrictive license on that piece of intellectual 
> property.

If the object in question (here, the ebuild) is licensed under GPL (not the
program it refers to, but the ebuild itself) then even the copyrightholder
can't force Gentoo to stop spreading the object since the license is still
valid.

I'm not sure though that ebuilds are under any sort of license. 

Wkr,
	Sven Vermeulen

-- 
    Save some animals, eat a vegetarian.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Jon Portnoy]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 10:58:19AM +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:17:23AM -0400, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > With regards to copyrights, it's necessary for us to own copyright on 
> > ebuilds in order to defend our intellectual property. If we (Gentoo 
> > Technologies) don't own copyright on ebuilds (and other pieces of 
> > Gentoo), we have no legal leg to stand on if someone (for example) 
> > attempts to put a more restrictive license on that piece of intellectual 
> > property.
> 
> If the object in question (here, the ebuild) is licensed under GPL (not the
> program it refers to, but the ebuild itself) then even the copyrightholder
> can't force Gentoo to stop spreading the object since the license is still
> valid.

That's not the point; the point is that it allows us to defend our 
intellectual property if someone else tries to infringe upon it; e.g., 
changing the license.

> 
> I'm not sure though that ebuilds are under any sort of license. 
> 

They're licensed under the GPL. Whether that's enforcable in court or 
not is another matter.


-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Luke-Jr]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Even if the owner were to change the license, they could not change it on 
ebuilds already released under the GPL.

On Thursday 21 August 2003 09:04 am, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> That's not the point; the point is that it allows us to defend our
> intellectual property if someone else tries to infringe upon it; e.g.,
> changing the license.
>
> > I'm not sure though that ebuilds are under any sort of license.
>
> They're licensed under the GPL. Whether that's enforcable in court or
> not is another matter.
- -- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/RM3pZl/BHdU+lYMRAtvSAJ4wJKkUxHp4C83d+yBlnajly1/jfQCcCAhM
TeqhzCnlSJ7aTD3mQQAeOW4=
=jp9J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Jon Portnoy]

On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 01:49:25PM +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Even if the owner were to change the license, they could not change it on 
> ebuilds already released under the GPL.
> 

I'm aware, thank you. I don't need to have the basics of copyright law 
explained to me.

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Luke-Jr]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I must have read the thread incorrectly at some point, then. I thought the 
purpose of Gentoo (co-)owning the copyright was the prevent the creator from 
making it proprietary. What exactly does it achive to have Gentoo (co-)own 
copyrights on them? I have no objection to the idea, but I see no actual 
*reason* why it should be required...

On Thursday 21 August 2003 06:00 pm, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 01:49:25PM +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Even if the owner were to change the license, they could not change it on
> > ebuilds already released under the GPL.
>
> I'm aware, thank you. I don't need to have the basics of copyright law
> explained to me.
- -- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/RWVHZl/BHdU+lYMRApjkAJ9CBki4BH5q3wABFpoNN5fxe3C+rQCcDP9k
hScPDIpYKARrj7oGU74ck8s=
=FlRV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Lloyd D Budd]

IMNAL, but the "standard reason" for SOLE ownership, or ("dual, but not
shared copyright") is to enable legal pursuit of license violators.  The
interesting side effect is that a copyright owner can license
distribution, or other rights, under additional licenses.


On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 20:35, Luke-Jr wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> I must have read the thread incorrectly at some point, then. I thought the 
> purpose of Gentoo (co-)owning the copyright was the prevent the creator from 
> making it proprietary. What exactly does it achive to have Gentoo (co-)own 
> copyrights on them? I have no objection to the idea, but I see no actual 
> *reason* why it should be required...
> 
> On Thursday 21 August 2003 06:00 pm, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 01:49:25PM +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > Even if the owner were to change the license, they could not change it on
> > > ebuilds already released under the GPL.
> >
> > I'm aware, thank you. I don't need to have the basics of copyright law
> > explained to me.
> - -- 
> Luke-Jr
> Developer, Gentoo Linux
> http://www.gentoo.org/
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQE/RWVHZl/BHdU+lYMRApjkAJ9CBki4BH5q3wABFpoNN5fxe3C+rQCcDP9k
> hScPDIpYKARrj7oGU74ck8s=
> =FlRV
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-- 
Lloyd D Budd <lloyd@foolswisdom.com>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Luke-Jr]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

But, as was pointed out by someone else, if one were to choose not to assign a 
dual copyright to Gentoo and the license was violated, nothing would stop 
them from doing so later on... right?

On Friday 22 August 2003 12:47 am, Lloyd D Budd wrote:
> IMNAL, but the "standard reason" for SOLE ownership, or ("dual, but not
> shared copyright") is to enable legal pursuit of license violators.  The
> interesting side effect is that a copyright owner can license
> distribution, or other rights, under additional licenses.
>
> On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 20:35, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > I must have read the thread incorrectly at some point, then. I thought
> > the purpose of Gentoo (co-)owning the copyright was the prevent the
> > creator from making it proprietary. What exactly does it achive to have
> > Gentoo (co-)own copyrights on them? I have no objection to the idea, but
> > I see no actual *reason* why it should be required...
> >
> > On Thursday 21 August 2003 06:00 pm, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 01:49:25PM +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > >
> > > > Even if the owner were to change the license, they could not change
> > > > it on ebuilds already released under the GPL.
> > >
> > > I'm aware, thank you. I don't need to have the basics of copyright law
> > > explained to me.
> >
> > - --
> > Luke-Jr
> > Developer, Gentoo Linux
> > http://www.gentoo.org/
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
> >
> > iD8DBQE/RWVHZl/BHdU+lYMRApjkAJ9CBki4BH5q3wABFpoNN5fxe3C+rQCcDP9k
> > hScPDIpYKARrj7oGU74ck8s=
> > =FlRV
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
> > --
> > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

- -- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/RW6wZl/BHdU+lYMRAmmcAJ9fptrZpQAymHkWz8ub6GnLyg9+9gCfX+qn
0QzNxAGwQ4NHiZCBULhgbDY=
=OGZs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Lloyd D Budd]

On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 21:15, Luke-Jr wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> But, as was pointed out by someone else, if one were to choose not to assign a 
> dual copyright to Gentoo and the license was violated, nothing would stop 
> them from doing so later on... right?
Except the copyright owner(s) ;-) but otherwise right.

The discussion in the context of ebuilds seems contrived as it seems
that most often there is little/no copyrightable work involved.  


> On Friday 22 August 2003 12:47 am, Lloyd D Budd wrote:
> > IMNAL, but the "standard reason" for SOLE ownership, or ("dual, but not
> > shared copyright") is to enable legal pursuit of license violators.  The
> > interesting side effect is that a copyright owner can license
> > distribution, or other rights, under additional licenses.
> >
> > On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 20:35, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > I must have read the thread incorrectly at some point, then. I thought
> > > the purpose of Gentoo (co-)owning the copyright was the prevent the
> > > creator from making it proprietary. What exactly does it achive to have
> > > Gentoo (co-)own copyrights on them? I have no objection to the idea, but
> > > I see no actual *reason* why it should be required...
> > >
> > > On Thursday 21 August 2003 06:00 pm, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 01:49:25PM +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > > Hash: SHA1
> > > > >
> > > > > Even if the owner were to change the license, they could not change
> > > > > it on ebuilds already released under the GPL.
> > > >
> > > > I'm aware, thank you. I don't need to have the basics of copyright law
> > > > explained to me.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?

[Luke-Jr]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

IIRC, the only reason one would need to own the copyright would be if the 
copyright were to be changed. Once something is licensed under the GPL, the 
owner cannot change the license on the one they released, only on future 
releases they make.

On Thursday 21 August 2003 04:17 am, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 12:09:17AM -0400, Paul wrote:
> > 	Hi;
> >
> > 	A long while back, I asked if it was a requirement
> > for ebuild submiters to assign copyright. I was told
> > no, GPL license was entirely sufficient. I think this has
> > changed, or was untrue.
> > 	Now, Ive already given up on the submission
> > process, but I _am_ curious about this policy, as I
> > havent yet given up on Gentoo itself.
> >
> > Paul
> > set@pobox.com
>
> I would be very interested in hearing your issues with ebuild
> submission, if you'd like to contact me privately about it.
>
> With regards to copyrights, it's necessary for us to own copyright on
> ebuilds in order to defend our intellectual property. If we (Gentoo
> Technologies) don't own copyright on ebuilds (and other pieces of
> Gentoo), we have no legal leg to stand on if someone (for example)
> attempts to put a more restrictive license on that piece of intellectual
> property.
>
> In short: if we don't own copyright, we can't defend ourselves.

- -- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/RMboZl/BHdU+lYMRApmAAJ9yqbRmqhIR+Z6VEbPSN6z9hR+n8wCdGRB0
ULXOD7KZPx7SqchsOlpJ/qc=
=R5V5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] copyright thread summary?

[Owen Gunden]

Hi,

Could someone who has been following this sort of closely please post an
objective summary of this thread?  Maybe put "SUMMARY" in the subject so
all can see.

Thanks,
Owen

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Summary: "Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?"

[Alec Berryman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4081 bytes --]

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]
  
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.  

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] 
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=16001#c12
  [6.2] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16001#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

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]