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 A718C138334 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 17:04:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5F4C0E08F3; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 17:04:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ed1-f45.google.com (mail-ed1-f45.google.com [209.85.208.45]) (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 04EDBE08F1 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 17:04:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ed1-f45.google.com with SMTP id c1-v6so8956134ede.5 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:04:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=rFIJjXdQJ77MYyMkt/kpDjpOM15vb1lfd6e4t+ENUZs=; b=pV8QvLbxLjXnUFnyVtDyji32qeieOUffB5nAEdhbBZSDupZwaSgMdkuq0qVDZxIRRd LwVZzRfgWJ+O7KlZZglg5fzBZSlmJ0sxe09Z5ZOuA0541WEwGQgaiM+iY4j2GOtHAk4c u3AmtbLhoDhaCprV3ueSU0Ksuo8ateOHxC7mBZiYC79gShEZViwjxLWGl/356IhnRKFi P12i3Niq1xcx1TIh2316WuIQJfVwPRPt8ODj8BHApOXhf8hvAnOQ7H7W/YIXRKMrNje6 8gWX6Kff2k2+HIWLFdlmcM4pXY9802vDzvzxpjmjLCA3yFTQEBShgXaH6wtdjAzGh2DG OixA== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfojkukWnvEHYCD6AU8hiriHpgTn4T2az6u0aui27OnF1BZEYzNef Lys27yZYRQGJARzIGvvoKzDBp4pIpB+lskaOMbdhEU/I X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV62/Mn0c9pLbAPfKjkKwWBPYTmgdBPokMXnG42h8kSB4qgyoUJ1SPIQGv5NRYldq9UmSolxLgb4dLpOM6Hmp/1I= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:7b05:: with SMTP id e5-v6mr3273030ejo.95.1539277439116; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:03:59 -0700 (PDT) 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 References: <20180930140524.015249f0@sf> <20181011153139.7700484dc6c452ed570df66a@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20181011153139.7700484dc6c452ed570df66a@gentoo.org> From: Alec Warner Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:03:46 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-10-14 To: gentoo-project Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f843090577f6f43c" X-Archives-Salt: fab2f0a8-534d-40c9-87be-eb04038c3bef X-Archives-Hash: 3976c3f705ca39c937389ca458a60e43 --000000000000f843090577f6f43c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 8:55 AM Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:43:52 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > >>>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > > > > > Hello all! > > > 14 October (in 2 weeks from now) > > > at 19:00 UTC Council will meet again. > > > > > Please provide agenda items you would like council@ to > > > look at (and act) as a reply to this email. > > > > The new copyright policy (GLEP 76) leaves it to projects to decide > > whether they use the long form or the simplified form of the copyright > > attribution. I would like to ask the council to decide that the > > simplified attribution [1] shall be used for ebuilds in the Gentoo > > repository. > > I'd like to voice strongly against this motion. > > Rationale: > > - We have out of the Gentoo repository ebuilds which may be > incorporated in the main repository and are licensed properly but > an author requires his copyright in the first line to be preserved. > GPL-2 allows us to use such ebuilds, but our past copyright policy > mandating "Gentoo Foundation" doesn't, as well as proposed motion > which mandates "Gentoo Authors" instead of the list of authors > including main author if they require so. > > - GLEP 76 already did significant harm to our community by > outlawing current anonymous or pseudonymous contributions. Moreover > we have people who want to join community, but keep their identity > hidden. This is understandable, especially for security or privacy > oriented software. The harm should go no further. We have a lot of > talks how we need more developers, but what we are doing in many > steps including GLEP 76 is exactly the opposite: we are creating > additional barriers due to vague and bureaucratic reasons. > > Of course if authors wants to use "Gentoo Authors" this should be > allowed, especially for automatic migration from the "Gentoo > Foundation" line. But we must preserve the right to use explicit > list of authors (including "and others" if necessary) if a > maintainer wants so. > My reading of ulm's proposal is that it is allowed. Ebuilds "shall" use the simple attribution, not that they "must" use it. To me that implies the simple attribution should be the default, but the complex attribution is acceptable in the ::gentoo repo. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the proposal? -A > Best regards, > Andrew Savchenko > --000000000000f843090577f6f43c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Thu= , Oct 11, 2018 at 8:55 AM Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@gentoo.org> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:43:52 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: >
> > Hello all!
> > 14 October (in 2 weeks from now)
> > at 19:00 UTC Council will meet again.
>
> > Please provide agenda items you would like council@ to
> > look at (and act) as a reply to this email.
>
> The new copyright policy (GLEP 76) leaves it to projects to decide
> whether they use the long form or the simplified form of the copyright=
> attribution. I would like to ask the council to decide that the
> simplified attribution [1] shall be used for ebuilds in the Gentoo
> repository.

I'd like to voice strongly against this motion.

Rationale:

- We have out of the Gentoo repository ebuilds which may be
incorporated in the main repository and are licensed properly but
an author requires his copyright in the first line to be preserved.
GPL-2 allows us to use such ebuilds, but our past copyright policy
mandating "Gentoo Foundation" doesn't, as well as proposed mo= tion
which mandates "Gentoo Authors" instead of the list of authors including main author if they require so.

- GLEP 76 already did significant harm to our community by
outlawing current anonymous or pseudonymous contributions. Moreover
we have people who want to join community, but keep their identity
hidden. This is understandable, especially for security or privacy
oriented software. The harm should go no further. We have a lot of
talks how we need more developers, but what we are doing in many
steps including GLEP 76 is exactly the opposite: we are creating
additional barriers due to vague and bureaucratic reasons.

Of course if authors wants to use "Gentoo Authors" this should be=
allowed, especially for automatic migration from the "Gentoo
Foundation" line. But we must preserve the right to use explicit
list of authors (including "and others" if necessary) if a
maintainer wants so.

My reading of ulm&= #39;s proposal is that it is allowed.

Ebuilds &quo= t;shall" use the simple attribution, not that they "must" us= e it.

To me that implies the simple attributio= n should be the default, but the complex attribution is acceptable in the := :gentoo repo.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the proposal?
<= div>
-A



Best regards,
Andrew Savchenko
--000000000000f843090577f6f43c--