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

[Lloyd D Budd <lloyd@foolswisdom.com>]

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