From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from parrot.gentoo.org (lists.gentoo.org [156.56.111.196]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j1QD4uRO025332 for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2005 13:04:56 GMT Received: (qmail 15062 invoked by uid 89); 26 Feb 2005 13:04:55 +0000 Received: (qmail 25767 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2005 13:04:54 +0000 Received: from s010602608cdb4440.vn.shawcable.net (HELO ectrolinux.com) (24.87.161.251) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 26 Feb 2005 13:04:54 +0000 Received: (qmail 3681 invoked by uid 89); 26 Feb 2005 05:02:20 -0800 Received: from unknown (HELO entro.nv.ectrolinux.com) (anthony@ectrolinux.com@172.16.1.3) by 0 with RC4-MD5 encrypted SMTP; 26 Feb 2005 05:02:12 -0800 From: Anthony Gorecki To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev] Copyright assignment and ownership (again) Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 05:02:06 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.92 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart26441575.p5tJ3Hf07u"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200502260502.12277.anthony@ectrolinux.com> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2-gr1 (2004-11-16) on selene.nv.ectrolinux.com X-Spam-Status: No; -5.8 hits out of a required 6.0 X-Spam-Report: * -3.3 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts * 0.1 EXCUSE_3 BODY: Claims you can be removed from the list * -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Archives-Salt: debb491b-f88e-43d8-b6cf-291a496b73de X-Archives-Hash: 36a6787b006beab646f9358f33880435 --nextPart26441575.p5tJ3Hf07u Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline An interesting idea presented itself this evening after listening to a=20 description in #gentoo-dev of a minor author-developer conflict regarding=20 giving credit to the original author of an ebuild, which had been heavily=20 rewritten by one of the developers:=20 Having read Gentoo's copyright policies and knowing that=20 they're /unquestioningly/ followed, I should submit an ebuild (being not=20 bound by a copyright assignment agreement) and then claim rights on it.=20 Perhaps if I were to initiate litigation against Gentoo, alleging that it w= as=20 falsely claiming copyright ownership over my work, the legal action would=20 facilitate the developers into abiding by their own copyright assignment=20 policies. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright/ Quite frankly, I don't believe it's very likely that a legal entity will=20 initiate such litigation; unfortunately, in the rare event that litigation= =20 did occur, it could cause a legal mess that would likely end in an=20 undesirable fashion. There are a number of factors to consider here. The=20 below assume that the submitting user has not signed a CAA: =46irst, licensing:=20 If a user submitted an ebuild containing the GPL licensing notice, Gentoo=20 could rightfully use and modify the ebuild as it required, distributing it = as=20 needed. On the other hand, if a developer actually committed an ebuild=20 without that licensing statement (or added it to the file on their own acco= rd=20 prior to it being committed), Gentoo would have absolutely no right to use,= =20 modify or distribute such a work. In such circumstances, the author could=20 order the ebuild to be removed from the tree. One ebuild may not be of grea= t=20 importance, however imagine if it was thirty ebuilds, or perhaps more. What= =20 would happen if it were hundreds of ebuilds? Second, ownership: Assuming that a contributed ebuild is submitted with an enclosed GPL licens= ing=20 "stamp," normal developer-use (thereby implying modification and=20 distribution) of the file could occur-- I would surmise that this is a vast= ly=20 more common occurrence than the former example. While it has less potential= =20 to impact the end-users of Gentoo, the author of such an ebuild could force= =20 Gentoo to cease claiming ownership of the file in the standard, "Copyright = X=20 Gentoo Foundation," notice. Ultimately, this might force the ebuild to be=20 modified to give proper credit, which is not an enormously difficult issue= =20 for a developer to correct.=20 What does concern me, however, is that such contributions might be working= =20 themselves into works other than the ebuilds, being Gentoo's made-in-house= =20 software, written articles and project resources. Again, the author might b= e=20 able to force Gentoo to cease claiming ownership over non-assigned work,=20 though more importantly, this limits _Gentoo's_ ability to enforce the=20 integrity of their work.=20 If a user were to begin illegally using a derivative version of Portage in= =20 violation of Gentoo's copyrights (whether it be licensing violations or=20 otherwise), the potential for foreign code existence suddenly becomes=20 critical to the defense of the software. I can only imagine the ease at whi= ch=20 a defense attorney could argue to a court that Gentoo only haphazardly=20 requires copyright assignment from its contributors, and is therefore=20 unaccountable for its software, or portions thereof-- how they would need t= o=20 prove that each and every single line of code was under their ownership. It= =20 may very well be that some sections of code could be found unaccountable,=20 depriving Gentoo of its party interest in such segments. In this way, the Linux kernel is open to abuse. As IBM is teaching SCO,=20 portions of code that you own cannot be illegally used under terms contrary= =20 to that of the license under which they are released. Unfortunately, IBM ca= n=20 only claim rights to and defend the code that it personally contributes. Fo= r=20 all of the other code, each individual contributor is responsible for=20 defending their work against abuse, which is the reason that some projects= =20 opt to require copyright assignment to a single entity in a collaborative,= =20 open-source development environment.=20 Arguing whether it's appropriate to assign copyrights is not within the sco= pe=20 of this message, but if Gentoo is planning to continue under the mandate of= =20 requiring contributors to assign copyrights, then there has to be no=20 acceptance for not following that rule. Either you assign copyrights=20 religiously, always and under every possible set of circumstances pending=20 death by infringement, FUD and the HURD people, or you don't assign=20 copyrights at all.=20 My personal belief is that copyright assignment is not necessary for ebuild= s,=20 as they have a short shelf-life and are relatively trivial to replace if a= =20 problem arises. The written works, software and all other project material,= =20 in contrast, deserve nothing less than the uncompromised and genuine legal= =20 protection that would be available through a copyright assignment policy th= at=20 was followed with respect by the developers and contributors. Heated flames and constructive discussion are welcome. =2D-=20 Anthony Gorecki Ectro-Linux Foundation --nextPart26441575.p5tJ3Hf07u Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.9.15 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUAQiBzU78NHCarD3E0AQILjw//WCzC3ihMdrOPpAehjRsmqG3aX//MjKSp rkT/10GUimSW+ijwMV4TkFe3jS68i8A/pzTH7tztMfQ9m/X9Zr2B7Rr8tM93eQsd LVWGVxB4tNyVklocFbOil1yucF2YgpqwKSWqlt9C7kHP4UScAsnH8auN23lMDZPJ GFc+I8cYBBpuil0N6rJByAQk0WVHbae2ZzYyKSLhQ4GdNWmTiJuORcNsUqxhtm5s YKs2hE/TtehH4FyqpewC3V2uSu1BA7FttEBGjDwSG5imCmbONC/yRHfaHieG6z72 F5eXscS2MWiKftS/azn5Ypo6n9cElr3m9SVw16tV++H/0/HR9zToJQOW91vaN6w/ O94KcZx420x6/iZwZy7hZakmJUi4GIaEuT1qRF85rI58LiOb+CWRoipN6W3X7ijo liAnWBBpd1CpDOb8WkGHQ/J+R85mvBJ0hiVaDoRVzBKVtEQiCtEoYjcQywg0dkC2 lyP9D2bLcWSgL37u3Ap8K2sws5RidGWWMYpzmFfygzOazyY2QVx7WtQiOPKxYmUA gofXOaBcE41lL3NPxORaO/br7z6j2Ua7sBokx/LsOu2pbRIER8Mpm6L8xHDvI4E6 jubwJNhwTp1pCDGIwUhXOd4p41TR0MTiNdwNPIhV4nTJzDv1sfdud7hULSbCTDPT 77Y+yCNidYs= =OOB8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart26441575.p5tJ3Hf07u-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list