From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9873C138334 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 15:51:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 98EE6E0A03; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 15:51:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64FA1E0A02 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 15:51:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from professor-x (d108-172-194-6.bchsia.telus.net [108.172.194.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: dolsen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 85E66335C8C for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 15:51:33 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 07:51:31 -0800 From: Brian Dolbec To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: copyright attribution clarifications Message-ID: <20181115075131.7e18d3f9@professor-x> In-Reply-To: References: <20181113183242.GA26771@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> <20181114173640.59082bce4db740b30446d368@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.1 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: be0b8728-b72a-4eea-9712-6baeac112079 X-Archives-Hash: 200ce5e1fa5232bdc6a0ff4925083412 On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 07:31:02 -0800 Rich Freeman wrote: > > Also, this doesn't seem to have been a problem in the past, and yet > our policy was far less free then. > ... > > We've done just fine for going on 20 years not allowing any notice > other than "Copyright xxx Gentoo Foundation." Now we open things up a > tiny bit and suddenly everybody and their uncle is saying that their > employers won't let them contribute code unless they stick their > company name in there. What have they been doing for the last decade? > Just like Gentoo's policies, things change in corporate environments. Where things have been fine contirubting without the attribution in the past. The new attribution requirement is due to Gentoo changing things with the copyright. With that change meant that the new "Gentoo" change had to be run by the "new" corporate management structure. That result came back that the contributions now require the SIE attribution. Why is that so hard to understand... If you didn't push for the copyright change in Gentoo, then the new policy wouldn't have had to be run past the "new bigger" corporate lawyers... and the status quo would not have changed... we wouldn't be having this run-on rant/bikeshed/waste of everyone's time/... typical endless mail list thread which just makes even more current or future developers want to quit/withdraw their application/add another tick to the con column about becoming a Gentoo dev. What you are calling abuse (Not just Rich0, anyone with that opinion) is just a consequence of the new GLEP and it's text. Get over it.