[gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the 2007/08 Trustees

[gentoo-dev] Nominations open for the 2007/08 Trustees

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 487 bytes --]

Since nobody else has sent this, I guess that I will do it.

The Trustees elections run in parallel with the Council elections, so
now is the time for nominations there, too.

Respond to the gentoo-nfp list and *not* to gentoo-dev, please.

As for anyone looking to nominate me, I'm pre-emptively declining.  ;]

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Nominations open for the 2007/08 Trustees

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2215 bytes --]

Ned Ludd wrote: [Mon Jul 16 2007, 04:00:44PM CDT]
> Long term I worry about the foundation. No offense to anybody. I'm sure 
> I don't know or understand the problems you/we have encountered along
> the way. But I think we need to face it 99.9% of our devs are not
> suited to run a foundation such as this. That's not a bad thing in any
> such way. Most of us came to this project cuz we are geeks doing geeky
> things is what we do best.. 
> I'm sure some of you get roped into doing the foundation because
> you truly love Gentoo and want to see things be taken care of. However
> to be frank. I don't think I've seen a single substantial thing
> accomplished sense cshields left Gentoo. Please don't take that the
> wrong way. I know we are all busy people. Perhaps you guys have done
> shitloads and I/we just don't know about it. Perhaps it's still the same
> old story.. We are waiting on ABC banks. We can't re-incorp without 
> XYZ first.

Actually, we have a bank, paypal successfully talks to it, and 
I believe that we're completely caught up w/ all of the various funding
requests that we've received.  You're point is still a good one, 
however.

> Anyway point I'm trying to make here is that I think we might be 
> better off using a 3rd party as our foundation. IE people who have 
> the experience/motivation and time to focus on such things 
> that a foundation should be.
> 
> Anyway. I'd like to nominate nobody in-house.

Yeah, I tend to agree.  Not-so-coincidentally, Gentoo's been invited to
join the Software Freedom Conservancy, which would provide just the sort
of 3rd-party management that you're suggesting.  I put a write-up on my
blog detailing what we know so far:

    http://www.grantgoodyear.org/g2blog/gentoo/20070717-sflc.html

I'm cross-posting to -dev, and suggesting that comments be sent 
there as well, since most people don't read -nfp.

If you think this is a good idea, a bad idea, or you just want to know
more, now's the time to express your opinion.

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Nominations open for the 2007/08 Trustees

[Marijn Schouten (hkBst)]

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

Grant Goodyear wrote:

> Not-so-coincidentally, Gentoo's been invited to
> join the Software Freedom Conservancy.

For those like me who don't already know who these people are. As you can read
here [http://www.softwarefreedom.org/services/] under Non-profit Corporate
Assistance, they appear to be a spin-off of the Software Freedom Law Center
(SFLC) which was was launched in February 2005 with Eben Moglen, of GPLv3
fame, as Chairman:

"The SFLC helps FOSS projects develop and maintain legal status to help ensure
their longevity. The SFLC assists its clients with all stages of corporate
existence, including formation and tax exemption, and helps projects with
their contracts and governance. The SFLC established and continues to serve as
counsel to the Software Freedom Conservancy, which provides an alternative to
independent corporate formation for FOSS projects. The SFLC is also able to
represent its clients in negotiations."

Marijn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGnOdpp/VmCx0OL2wRAocTAJ9FULX8CMOyZWsliGxvSXYZ1KmNDgCeNbxV
P1nm8iij8GjYBR3fW2DTXxw=
=iGWC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Nominations open for the 2007/08 Trustees

[Ned Ludd]

On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 10:08 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Ned Ludd wrote: [Mon Jul 16 2007, 04:00:44PM CDT]
> > Long term I worry about the foundation. No offense to anybody. I'm sure 
> > I don't know or understand the problems you/we have encountered along
> > the way. But I think we need to face it 99.9% of our devs are not
> > suited to run a foundation such as this. That's not a bad thing in any
> > such way. Most of us came to this project cuz we are geeks doing geeky
> > things is what we do best.. 
> > I'm sure some of you get roped into doing the foundation because
> > you truly love Gentoo and want to see things be taken care of. However
> > to be frank. I don't think I've seen a single substantial thing
> > accomplished sense cshields left Gentoo. Please don't take that the
> > wrong way. I know we are all busy people. Perhaps you guys have done
> > shitloads and I/we just don't know about it. Perhaps it's still the same
> > old story.. We are waiting on ABC banks. We can't re-incorp without 
> > XYZ first.
> 
> Actually, we have a bank, paypal successfully talks to it, 

Thats good to hear about paypal/banking. And it's good to know 
that you guys are still there looking out for Gentoo. 

> and 
> I believe that we're completely caught up w/ all of the various funding
> requests that we've received.  You're point is still a good one, 
> however.
> 
> > Anyway point I'm trying to make here is that I think we might be 
> > better off using a 3rd party as our foundation. IE people who have 
> > the experience/motivation and time to focus on such things 
> > that a foundation should be.
> > 
> > Anyway. I'd like to nominate nobody in-house.
> 
> Yeah, I tend to agree.  Not-so-coincidentally, Gentoo's been invited to
> join the Software Freedom Conservancy, which would provide just the sort
> of 3rd-party management that you're suggesting.  I put a write-up on my
> blog detailing what we know so far:
> 
>     http://www.grantgoodyear.org/g2blog/gentoo/20070717-sflc.html
> 
> I'm cross-posting to -dev, and suggesting that comments be sent 
> there as well, since most people don't read -nfp.
> 
> If you think this is a good idea, a bad idea, or you just want to know
> more, now's the time to express your opinion.
> 
> -g2boojum-

We're happy to discuss methods that have worked for other projects with
you to help you select the solution that is right for you.

I defiantly think this makes the most sense for Gentoo at this time.
One area that seems a tad fuzzy in details is how Gentoo would handle 
dealing with Paragraph 6 - Representation of the Project in the
Conservancy. If we went to FSC route. Should we bother in even having a
foundation? If so what role shall it play other than to be the liaison
between internal funding requests? I think clearly it would not be the
best of ideas to allow all our devs unilateral spending abilities.
Would you mind inquiring about the "methods that have worked for other
projects" ? 

We are a 501(c)6 right now if I remember correctly and that has been a
limiting factor in us receiving donations in this past. By teaming up
with them we gain the 501(c)3 status. That seems like a good thing in
and of itself as it allows our sponsors to write off donations to 
the project. Which in turn could lead to a lot more donations, which 
then turns into Gentoo being able to offer bigger and better things 
at the end of the day.

Thanks for taking the time to work with them, and informing us that 
the foundation is still active (it's somewhat hard to tell sometimes).

-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-nfp] joining the Software Freedom Conservancy (was: Nominations open for the 2007/08 Trustees)

[Marius Mauch]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:08:23 -0500
Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Ned Ludd wrote: [Mon Jul 16 2007, 04:00:44PM CDT]
> > Anyway point I'm trying to make here is that I think we might be 
> > better off using a 3rd party as our foundation. IE people who have 
> > the experience/motivation and time to focus on such things 
> > that a foundation should be.
> > 
> > Anyway. I'd like to nominate nobody in-house.
> 
> Yeah, I tend to agree.  Not-so-coincidentally, Gentoo's been invited
> to join the Software Freedom Conservancy, which would provide just
> the sort of 3rd-party management that you're suggesting.  I put a
> write-up on my blog detailing what we know so far:
> 
>     http://www.grantgoodyear.org/g2blog/gentoo/20070717-sflc.html

While I think this would be an excellent move, there are a few topics
that concern me a bit:
1) just to be sure, did someone check the transfer agreement between the
Foundation and the old Gentoo, Inc for potential problems?
2) what would this mean for our copyright situation? In detail:
a) who would (legally) own the copyright?
b) what would (in theory) be involved if we'd want to enforce/change
the license?
c) if the copyright were owned by the Conservancy, would we have to
change our copyright headers (in existing and/or new files)?
3) the time it takes to process a funding request worries me a little
bit as well, but then I've never had to deal with that so I'll trust
people who have more experience with that.

2c) is the thing that concernes me the most, changing all of our
copyright notices would be a huge pain.

Btw, you should probably make a new topic for that so people actually
notice it.

Marius
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-nfp] Nominations open for the 2007/08 Trustees

[Daniel Ostrow]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 918 bytes --]

<snip>
> Yeah, I tend to agree.  Not-so-coincidentally, Gentoo's been invited to
> join the Software Freedom Conservancy, which would provide just the sort
> of 3rd-party management that you're suggesting.  I put a write-up on my
> blog detailing what we know so far:
> 
>     http://www.grantgoodyear.org/g2blog/gentoo/20070717-sflc.html
> 
> I'm cross-posting to -dev, and suggesting that comments be sent 
> there as well, since most people don't read -nfp.
> 
> If you think this is a good idea, a bad idea, or you just want to know
> more, now's the time to express your opinion.
<snip>

Just went trough this with another project I belong to and I think it
would be a GREAT idea. granted would have to be accepted by the
developer population but I for one know that when I was a trustee I was
rather paralyzed by fear doing anything with the NFP entity. Please
please pleasey please do this!

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: joining the Software Freedom Conservancy

[Ryan Hill]

Marius Mauch wrote:
> While I think this would be an excellent move, there are a few topics
> that concern me a bit:
> 1) just to be sure, did someone check the transfer agreement between the
> Foundation and the old Gentoo, Inc for potential problems?
> 2) what would this mean for our copyright situation? In detail:
> a) who would (legally) own the copyright?
> b) what would (in theory) be involved if we'd want to enforce/change
> the license?
> c) if the copyright were owned by the Conservancy, would we have to
> change our copyright headers (in existing and/or new files)?

It might be worth noting that it appears that Gentoo would be the first
distribution to join.  I'd be interested in knowing if the SFC considers
distributing closed-source or proprietary software (nero, ati/nvidia
drivers, vmware) to be "producing non-free software (as per the
Conservancy's charitable purpose)" as mentioned in section 2(b) of their
notes.  Paragraph 2(a) seems to prohibit it.

> a. The Project Will Be Free Software.  The Conservancy and the Project agree that 
>    any software distributed by the Project will be distributed solely as Free Software.

If that's not a problem I think this is a great idea.


-- 
dirtyepic    you'd be tossed up or wash up, the narrator relates
 gentoo org          in a spartan antarctican walk for many days
  9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3  5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8)

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: joining the Software Freedom Conservancy

[Josh Saddler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1678 bytes --]

Ryan Hill wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
>> While I think this would be an excellent move, there are a few topics
>> that concern me a bit:
>> 1) just to be sure, did someone check the transfer agreement between the
>> Foundation and the old Gentoo, Inc for potential problems?
>> 2) what would this mean for our copyright situation? In detail:
>> a) who would (legally) own the copyright?
>> b) what would (in theory) be involved if we'd want to enforce/change
>> the license?
>> c) if the copyright were owned by the Conservancy, would we have to
>> change our copyright headers (in existing and/or new files)?
> 
> It might be worth noting that it appears that Gentoo would be the first
> distribution to join.  I'd be interested in knowing if the SFC considers
> distributing closed-source or proprietary software (nero, ati/nvidia
> drivers, vmware) to be "producing non-free software (as per the
> Conservancy's charitable purpose)" as mentioned in section 2(b) of their
> notes.  Paragraph 2(a) seems to prohibit it.
> 
>> a. The Project Will Be Free Software.  The Conservancy and the Project agree that 
>>    any software distributed by the Project will be distributed solely as Free Software.
> 
> If that's not a problem I think this is a great idea.

We don't "distribute" those, do we? A look at their ebuilds shows that
those are just downloaded from upstream, not from Gentoo mirrors. Well,
except for Nero.

At least we aren't the creators of it!

Does that document you mention define what "Free Software" is? nvidia
drivers are free to download, install, use, in the sense that they don't
cost anything. Bah, legal hassle!



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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: joining the Software Freedom Conservancy

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 85 bytes --]

a topic for the gentoo-nfp list since it'd be the trustees making the decision
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: joining the Software Freedom Conservancy

[Michael Cummings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1206 bytes --]

On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 12:49:33PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> It might be worth noting that it appears that Gentoo would be the first
> distribution to join.  I'd be interested in knowing if the SFC considers
> distributing closed-source or proprietary software (nero, ati/nvidia
> drivers, vmware) to be "producing non-free software (as per the
> Conservancy's charitable purpose)" as mentioned in section 2(b) of their
> notes.  Paragraph 2(a) seems to prohibit it.
> 
> > a. The Project Will Be Free Software.  The Conservancy and the Project agree that 
> >    any software distributed by the Project will be distributed solely as Free Software.
> 
> If that's not a problem I think this is a great idea.
> 

It's not a problem  - what we actually produce as a product, the ebuilds, etc.,
are free to distribute. 

-- 

-----o()o----------------------------------------------
Michael Cummings   |    #gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl
Gentoo Perl Dev    |    on irc.freenode.net 
Gentoo/SPARC
Gentoo/AMD64
GPG: 0543 6FA3 5F82 3A76 3BF7  8323 AB5C ED4E 9E7F 4E2E
-----o()o----------------------------------------------

Hi, I'm a .signature virus! Please copy me in your ~/.signature.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: joining the Software Freedom Conservancy

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1930 bytes --]

On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 12:49 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> > While I think this would be an excellent move, there are a few topics
> > that concern me a bit:
> > 1) just to be sure, did someone check the transfer agreement between the
> > Foundation and the old Gentoo, Inc for potential problems?
> > 2) what would this mean for our copyright situation? In detail:
> > a) who would (legally) own the copyright?
> > b) what would (in theory) be involved if we'd want to enforce/change
> > the license?
> > c) if the copyright were owned by the Conservancy, would we have to
> > change our copyright headers (in existing and/or new files)?
> 
> It might be worth noting that it appears that Gentoo would be the first
> distribution to join.  I'd be interested in knowing if the SFC considers
> distributing closed-source or proprietary software (nero, ati/nvidia
> drivers, vmware) to be "producing non-free software (as per the
> Conservancy's charitable purpose)" as mentioned in section 2(b) of their
> notes.  Paragraph 2(a) seems to prohibit it.
> 
> > a. The Project Will Be Free Software.  The Conservancy and the Project agree that 
> >    any software distributed by the Project will be distributed solely as Free Software.
> 
> If that's not a problem I think this is a great idea.

Well, we'd be the second distribution, as Debian uses the SFC.  Also,
realize that we've already gone through all of this with the SFC and
wouldn't even be bringing it up as an option if the SFC hadn't already
approved us.  They are aware of the state of our tree and that we do
ship *ebuilds* for proprietary software.  Remember that we don't
distribute closed-source software, we distribute *ebuilds* for said
software.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: joining the Software Freedom Conservancy

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 655 bytes --]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Well, we'd be the second distribution, as Debian uses the SFC.  Also,
> realize that we've already gone through all of this with the SFC and
> wouldn't even be bringing it up as an option if the SFC hadn't already
> approved us.  They are aware of the state of our tree and that we do
> ship *ebuilds* for proprietary software.  Remember that we don't
> distribute closed-source software, we distribute *ebuilds* for said
> software.

Are you sure we don't mirror any binary software or non-free software? I
would be shocked if our mirrors contained nothing violating the
open-source definition.

Thanks,
Donnie


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: joining the Software Freedom Conservancy

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3139 bytes --]

On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 17:28 -0700, Josh Saddler wrote:
> Ryan Hill wrote:
> > Marius Mauch wrote:
> >> While I think this would be an excellent move, there are a few topics
> >> that concern me a bit:
> >> 1) just to be sure, did someone check the transfer agreement between the
> >> Foundation and the old Gentoo, Inc for potential problems?
> >> 2) what would this mean for our copyright situation? In detail:
> >> a) who would (legally) own the copyright?
> >> b) what would (in theory) be involved if we'd want to enforce/change
> >> the license?
> >> c) if the copyright were owned by the Conservancy, would we have to
> >> change our copyright headers (in existing and/or new files)?
> > 
> > It might be worth noting that it appears that Gentoo would be the first
> > distribution to join.  I'd be interested in knowing if the SFC considers
> > distributing closed-source or proprietary software (nero, ati/nvidia
> > drivers, vmware) to be "producing non-free software (as per the
> > Conservancy's charitable purpose)" as mentioned in section 2(b) of their
> > notes.  Paragraph 2(a) seems to prohibit it.
> > 
> >> a. The Project Will Be Free Software.  The Conservancy and the Project agree that 
> >>    any software distributed by the Project will be distributed solely as Free Software.
> > 
> > If that's not a problem I think this is a great idea.
> 
> We don't "distribute" those, do we? A look at their ebuilds shows that
> those are just downloaded from upstream, not from Gentoo mirrors. Well,
> except for Nero.
> 
> At least we aren't the creators of it!
> 
> Does that document you mention define what "Free Software" is? nvidia
> drivers are free to download, install, use, in the sense that they don't
> cost anything. Bah, legal hassle!

It doesn't matter, since the SFC has already said they would welcome us.
I think Grant did a quick "informal" LICENSE scan and determined that
like 95% of the tree was GPL-licensed.  That high of a percentage was
enough for the SFC, along with our informal policy of preferring OSS
over proprietary.  After all, we could still be offering XFree86, but
chose to go with the more "open" of the two and focus all of our
energies there.  We've also seen quite a few external drivers get
removed over the years after the open replacements got good enough to
replace the proprietary drivers.  I'm sure many of you can come up with
your own examples of this.  The point was that we *do* push free
software, and our products are free software and not proprietary.  The
only real problem that I have here is it limits our ability to ever have
a non-free fork, such as an enterprise fork, run by us, without leaving
the SFC.  Of course, we're nowhere near that point now, so it shouldn't
be a primary concern, especially considering that we can leave the SFC
of our own volition at any time, and the SFC will even help us set up
ourselves when/if that times comes.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: joining the Software Freedom Conservancy

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 972 bytes --]

On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 14:06 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Well, we'd be the second distribution, as Debian uses the SFC.  Also,
> > realize that we've already gone through all of this with the SFC and
> > wouldn't even be bringing it up as an option if the SFC hadn't already
> > approved us.  They are aware of the state of our tree and that we do
> > ship *ebuilds* for proprietary software.  Remember that we don't
> > distribute closed-source software, we distribute *ebuilds* for said
> > software.
> 
> Are you sure we don't mirror any binary software or non-free software? I
> would be shocked if our mirrors contained nothing violating the
> open-source definition.

We have lots that violates "open source" by any definition, but we don't
create it.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: joining the Software Freedom Conservancy

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1149 bytes --]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:03:50 -0700
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 14:06 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > Well, we'd be the second distribution, as Debian uses the SFC.
> > > Also, realize that we've already gone through all of this with
> > > the SFC and wouldn't even be bringing it up as an option if the
> > > SFC hadn't already approved us.  They are aware of the state of
> > > our tree and that we do ship *ebuilds* for proprietary software.
> > > Remember that we don't distribute closed-source software, we
> > > distribute *ebuilds* for said software.
> > 
> > Are you sure we don't mirror any binary software or non-free
> > software? I would be shocked if our mirrors contained nothing
> > violating the open-source definition.
> 
> We have lots that violates "open source" by any definition, but we
> don't create it.

I completely agree with you. But the part quoted by Ryan Hill doesn't
say created. It says distributed. Perhaps we need to modify the wording
of their standard agreement to reflect how distributions work.

Thanks,
Donnie

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: joining the Software Freedom Conservancy

[Ryan Hill]

Michael Cummings wrote:

>>> a. The Project Will Be Free Software.  The Conservancy and the Project agree that 
>>>    any software distributed by the Project will be distributed solely as Free Software.

>> If that's not a problem I think this is a great idea.

> It's not a problem  - what we actually produce as a product, the ebuilds, etc.,
> are free to distribute. 

They may want to change their language then from "software distributed"
to "software produced" or something.  Taken literally it seems to imply
differently.  Is it possible to ask your contact to clarify this, just
to be safe?


-- 
dirtyepic    you'd be tossed up or wash up, the narrator relates
 gentoo org          in a spartan antarctican walk for many days
  9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3  5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8)

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: joining the Software Freedom Conservancy

[Ryan Hill]

Ryan Hill wrote:
> Michael Cummings wrote:
> 
>>>> a. The Project Will Be Free Software.  The Conservancy and the Project agree that 
>>>>    any software distributed by the Project will be distributed solely as Free Software.
> 
>>> If that's not a problem I think this is a great idea.
> 
>> It's not a problem  - what we actually produce as a product, the ebuilds, etc.,
>> are free to distribute. 
> 
> They may want to change their language then from "software distributed"
> to "software produced" or something.  Taken literally it seems to imply
> differently.  Is it possible to ask your contact to clarify this, just
> to be safe?

Never mind, i just saw Chris' post.  Good enough for me. ;D

-- 
dirtyepic    you'd be tossed up or wash up, the narrator relates
 gentoo org          in a spartan antarctican walk for many days
  9B81 6C9F E791 83BB 3AB3  5B2D E625 A073 8379 37E8 (0x837937E8)

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list