From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30516 invoked by uid 1002); 22 Aug 2003 01:15:34 -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 6118 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2003 01:15:34 -0000 From: Luke-Jr Organization: Gentoo Linux To: Lloyd D Budd Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 01:15:24 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2 Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org References: <20030821040916.GE26885@squish.home.loc> <200308220035.25163.luke-jr@gentoo.org> <1061513222.26085.24.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1061513222.26085.24.camel@localhost> GPG-Public-Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xD53E9583 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="shift_jis" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: clearsigned data Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200308220115.32507.luke-jr@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Why should copyright assignment be a requirement? X-Archives-Salt: 3ff274e1-dbf3-4df3-b3a8-98634378b53b X-Archives-Hash: 764d0ec5effec32cbcbbb98c1a66004f =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 But, as was pointed out by someone else, if one were to choose not to assig= n a=20 dual copyright to Gentoo and the license was violated, nothing would stop=20 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=3D > > =3DFlRV > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > > > -- > > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list =2D --=20 Luke-Jr Developer, Gentoo Linux http://www.gentoo.org/ =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/RW6wZl/BHdU+lYMRAmmcAJ9fptrZpQAymHkWz8ub6GnLyg9+9gCfX+qn 0QzNxAGwQ4NHiZCBULhgbDY=3D =3DOGZs =2D----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list