From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31092 invoked by uid 1002); 21 Aug 2003 10:15:57 -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 6265 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2003 10:15:57 -0000 Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 12:16:16 +0200 From: Spider To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Message-Id: <20030821121616.34a10985.spider@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20030821051637.GF26885@squish.home.loc> References: <20030821040916.GE26885@squish.home.loc> <20030821041723.GA2653@cerberus.oppresses.us> <20030821051637.GF26885@squish.home.loc> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="6B87rC'CYQD(=.bK" Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Why should copyright assignment be a requirement? X-Archives-Salt: 0363672b-85b0-4235-afed-113312da6bc6 X-Archives-Hash: b434e34fb8ffad6ed51864efcbfb5e5e --6B87rC'CYQD(=.bK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit begin quote On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 01:16:37 -0400 Paul 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 --6B87rC'CYQD(=.bK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/RJvyZS9CZTi033kRAvifAJ9+rM5eU/9svYEC/4CEd37RVZvpHQCdFi70 AVyRQor+jYY8b6OKQAWFtCw= =BX1Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --6B87rC'CYQD(=.bK--