From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20020 invoked by uid 1002); 22 Aug 2003 13:25:26 -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 21125 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2003 13:25:26 -0000 From: Lloyd D Budd To: Luke-Jr Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <200308220115.32507.luke-jr@gentoo.org> References: <20030821040916.GE26885@squish.home.loc> <200308220035.25163.luke-jr@gentoo.org> <1061513222.26085.24.camel@localhost> <200308220115.32507.luke-jr@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1061558422.26085.94.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.4 Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:20:23 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Why should copyright assignment be a requirement? X-Archives-Salt: 4ed5f1da-51bd-41f6-8ea7-f415ea2467ef X-Archives-Hash: 8d4b7925aa998050850e4e4765a44c55 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