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 B3CA6138334 for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2018 20:57:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7640DE0961; Fri, 23 Nov 2018 20:57:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pg1-f169.google.com (mail-pg1-f169.google.com [209.85.215.169]) (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 2A980E0948 for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2018 20:57:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg1-f169.google.com with SMTP id n2so3486317pgm.3 for ; Fri, 23 Nov 2018 12:57:35 -0800 (PST) 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=Y5a569fSzwWR/vpfllKAotjtrHfWfUhSu2W2RZf0M68=; b=UiovbvGn8zmxMy+5kIMhsvb3Iq+DIwO76Fswbc5sXupuxXsiuwfw6o+i6fRfo5VpDc Z3renOs5blii5dY8OFFr97B9YoKf6HHVI7DBAxnsQ7+WklcmSuqZJeTDtbgdDSz+hkrQ zI5wvo1eSpzcakJvcD5h747T8EBSc7bULyOwq9tZQqBDcir9XAxbylfFagxx1ZFy2DZu Z1Xsf1hR3Sb06vSbf4uFtv378dlQsS6ushW9+lywHWsLAR++KTevb6csaI58IVtZCdAu wsyqVeLzSPb6AKI4HhKcOLAe4zJ8UfCkjGqFzCTB3uojBTXHfJHOPA1TNu6+EwUVTd4N vtYA== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWaIp4WG5ip9XshZxTz88y9CHvuGcAbCgBi43x3gGQH4dCIQRUR/ hjukNpFDx3Gxe8pD3AVUC5n38uIvucRjMzzfZVcTOc7b39k= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/U3JOv25WpNZmwT1+VtudarxeIAGOdcjlrogd6rqQ7o2iGzCZ+5H5rSeuOBOFe39Wlua4bf7R020LrnXvyF+lo= X-Received: by 2002:a63:66c6:: with SMTP id a189mr15500689pgc.167.1543006654405; Fri, 23 Nov 2018 12:57:34 -0800 (PST) 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: <20181113183242.GA26771@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> <20181114024643.GA15537@linux1.home> <20181114174522.cab71989801dc2c155735326@gentoo.org> <20181114185302.875806d543d7da9d9162fc42@gentoo.org> <0ab206f1-4416-b35c-0f1b-85d5dd24c7c0@poindexter.ovh> <0082a107-c458-d9bd-0f38-9b3085f0a9d3@poindexter.ovh> In-Reply-To: <0082a107-c458-d9bd-0f38-9b3085f0a9d3@poindexter.ovh> From: Rich Freeman Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 15:57:23 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: copyright attribution clarifications To: gentoo-project Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Archives-Salt: 3b9c1e71-0ad8-40b0-a777-5cd67015a72c X-Archives-Hash: bf4e3b356efd5016f32610f92c58a049 On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 3:23 PM Sarah White wrote: > > It depends. It is not proper to remove an otherwise valid > copyright notice (though it's likely proper / "good enough" > if a simplified attribution of the form "gentoo authors" > is used instead - that's fine on an opt-in basis) > IMO it is legal even if it isn't opt-in. So, legally we could always just let contributors tack their employer's name on the one-liner and then just trim it back off when they're not looking. That probably won't make us any friends, but as far as I can tell nobody has ever successfully sued somebody for doing this when the work was distributed under the GPL. > What's the purpose of removing or discouraging > something which doesn't harm gentoo It creates clutter in files that are otherwise very concise, so it does cause a form of harm. I get that lawyers like imposing restrictions on employees in their companies to look like they're doing something. That doesn't mean that we have to humor them. It is unfortunate that they have their employees at a disadvantage, but we can't control the relationships our contributors get into. What if a company requires that we put their logo on our sponsors page for one of their employees to contribute even a single line of code off-hours? Sure, the harm of honoring that policy also is hard to quantify, but it is clearly there, as it diminishes the value of being recognized as a sponsor (and our existing sponsors give us more than that - we try to have internal guidelines for what qualifies so that the honor isn't cheapened). As far as I'm aware, the number of contributors who are even impacted by this policy is one. I certainly do feel bad about the situation they are in, but unfortunately that is the nature of employee relationships in the US. We have many people who are paid to contribute to Gentoo who do not have this restriction. As far as I can tell, the people responsible for imposing the restriction in this case aren't interested in making a case for why they feel it is necessary. -- Rich