Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: copyright attribution clarifications

[Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>]

On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 3:52 PM William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Regardless of anything that is said in this thread, I do not agree, as
> a council member, with the idea of the Gentoo community actively
> tarnishing anyone's reputation.
>
> I have added the proctors to this email, because I think they should
> determine whether your behavior is a CoC violation.
>

The opinions below are my own.

IMO advocating for what Gentoo should or shouldn't do isn't a CoC
violation.  I certainly haven't said anything intended to tarnish
Sony's reputation in the email above.

I do think that antarus's suggestion of leaving the policy as-is for
now and seeking further clarification from Sony as to why they feel it
is necessary to change it would be more constructive.

That said, I don't like the idea that corporations can basically
dictate policy changes under the threat of withdrawing contributions.
This has created a lot of churn mostly involving the most senior
members of the community, and a moderate amount of division.  While
one developer getting to spend a few hours per week on company time on
Gentoo commits is certainly helpful, many other companies seem to be
able to provide this to Gentoo without requiring policy changes, and
far more hours get donated by volunteers without any demands for
concessions.

I'll admit that my post was a bit emotional, and as such perhaps not a
great example for a dev to set.  However, I'm not sure that passive
acceptance of a change like this is going to be any less harmful to
Gentoo than active defiance.  These two are of course not the only
alternatives, and we should seek a better way.

-- 
Rich