From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0D1A1381F3 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:07:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CF43E21C07D; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:07:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDEB721C077 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:06:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.42]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 702BA21C72 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 12:06:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.160]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 19 Nov 2012 12:06:54 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=smtpout; bh=N05SNboGd1Rknw7iVs0o0CPYHxw=; b=Ep0ZnXf1Rk0J6MZyl6va9hcyhfzS YKOA/1j1OfSPt0nCDVXQNfCB3A7G8pbWEKf9DJCXK+5mWncyHuUBCjFyf3eL80V+ Yj7HOsyKO1/rfsTEIELkBEFlLWluPuzGtYq1NWzIOYtQLKn+cyzVkO3ErFHj2Irw xyL8gMbhkuJDfTo= X-Sasl-enc: NoKUBifKaGeKkGYEW6fScWV+W8SLfW5I6E4FYPK0W4XZ 1353344814 Received: from localhost (unknown [67.168.183.230]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 160E38E015C; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 12:06:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 09:06:53 -0800 From: Greg KH To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?) Message-ID: <20121119170653.GC4393@kroah.com> References: <20121106212816.GE82762@gentoo.org> <20121117190207.GY83592@gentoo.org> <20121118032922.GA2335@kroah.com> <20121119025820.GA29497@kroah.com> <20121119043054.GC29764@kroah.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: a210b9e8-f9b1-476f-b146-c96181391286 X-Archives-Hash: 3c4444044347926ae4ae2dd7e4e8578c On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 07:03:12AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > > > Talk to a lawyer if you disagree with this. The area of copyright law, > > and software, is very well defined (with one exception of the "major > > change to add your copyright, and even then, there's an agreed apon > > standard to follow). Because of that, I disagree that you think this is > > something that is unknown at all. > > I realize that it is illegal to remove a copyright line from a work > without permission, just as it is illegal to copy a work in the first > place without permission. The question is whether the GPL gives such > permission, whether it is possible to give such permission, or at > least whether you can give somebody this permission and then sue them > for following through. > > That's my main concern here. Can somebody say, "sure, go ahead and > remove my name from the copyright line" and then sue you for doing it? Just removing the name doesn't remove the copyright itself, but, and this is the important thing, it shows "intent". Intent is a very powerful thing when it comes to legal enforcement. If you remove a copyright line, or add your own line, you are showing what you are wanting to do here. So if you remove a copyright line, you are showing your "intent" to remove the legal notification of the original copyright holders of the file, which, in numerous juristictions, can be a very serious offence. Again, talk to a lawyer for all of the details if you are curious. > I suspect the wisest course of action for the Foundation will be to > take the conservative approach. However, I do not believe that this > is because this is legally required. It is simply a matter of not > being wise to spend all that donated money fighting to prove that this > is the case. After all, even if I'm completely right, that doesn't > mean that somebody can't sue me. Winning a legal case in the US is a > very expensive proposition. I'm sure that would be the advice of any > lawyer we retained. All that said, a formal policy would be a good > idea. No one has to "fight" at all here, the law is very clear, and a quick consultation with a copyright lawyer can provide us with a very good set of rules and boundry conditions that all of us need to follow in order to ensure that the Foundation does not get into any trouble when it comes to copyrights. thanks, greg k-h