Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] GLEP 76: Copyright Policy [v4]

[kuzetsa <kuzetsa@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2295 bytes --]

On 09/27/2018 08:42 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 8:00 AM NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 09/26/2018 03:25 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> Here is another small update of the copyright GLEP, resulting from a
>>> recent discussion on IRC. This is not a change of policy, but merely
>>> a clarification of the real name requirement:
>>>
>>> - The Signed-off-by line must contain the name of a natural person.
>>>
>>> - A copyright holder can be a legal entity (e.g., a company) in some
>>>   jurisdictions.
>>>
>>
>> IANAL, but as per the Berne Convention, anonymous and pseudonymous works
>> are granted copyright protection.  What's the rationale behind mandating
>> a real name?
> 
> The DCO/GCO have nothing to do with obtaining copyright protection.
> This is always present if not waived.
> 
> It is about showing due diligence in the event somebody claims that
> somebody ripped off their work and contributed it to Gentoo without
> authorization.
> 
> If your real name is attached to a statement saying that you didn't
> steal the work, and you did steal the work, then they can go after you
> as well as Gentoo.  That deters contributing stuff without checking on
> its legality.  That same deterrence also helps show good faith on
> Gentoo's part.  This is why organizations generally pursue these
> policies.
> 
> If somebody violates a copyright anonymously, then they have no skin
> in the game.  They can just disappear if anything bad happens.  If a
> contributor isn't willing to stake their own money and reputation on
> the statement that something is legal to contribute, then why should
> Gentoo assume that they've put a lot of effort into the accuracy of
> that statement?
> 

in this case, the GCO (or the DCO from which it borrowed it's ideas)
should explicitly state its purposes, rather than relying on the
assumption that a person can be tracked down if the license was is ever
in doubt.

people can and do physically relocate from time to time, and if they're
no longer a contributor there's no way to track them down, should the
need arise for any legal or ethical questions (the kind of purpose which
the policy makes no mention of: a way to reach the contributor)

- via key


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]