From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D178138ACE for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2015 12:09:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7E880E085D; Sat, 7 Mar 2015 12:09:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-f173.google.com (mail-ie0-f173.google.com [209.85.223.173]) (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 0FABAE084E for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2015 12:09:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iebtr6 with SMTP id tr6so18869829ieb.2 for ; Sat, 07 Mar 2015 04:09:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=nrS9fYQT7qlv3xYaySNqklggIEEQJeBQe14Tdc7ciUU=; b=YcqAV862a0miThxrKFla1arIIaW9LM3xEgSDmC1/RqWlVJ+UVj5hvvMyZy8gkx6nOM NPx7YZJuZLwrNM3Iu5xTUpWxvSQ5PvtnQtT8WQt3oGJ4DkHvzNx9RZNYir4mp6P+kbt/ X3M0Vyrws6hGDMSNItr3oKB07vmmtH3uKymfyQU55cUE/C/hewTxCxjJve8HtA5klMXO VCtg0JLtkbRJZ9+v/lkfh2fpAe+0xTzrfkA6aetMPvltOhfIbXifeba5wPSv1jDfcEr8 EP3L71J2xLQjc55/ilIG+xmpzgYi7vz0GG89OGHUEnIhS+QJo5F772cJeYMcKm35CcoV v+4w== 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 X-Received: by 10.107.18.226 with SMTP id 95mr20838301ios.84.1425730153282; Sat, 07 Mar 2015 04:09:13 -0800 (PST) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.182.136 with HTTP; Sat, 7 Mar 2015 04:09:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <21754.48293.955801.232338@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> References: <54FA60C8.2020503@gentoo.org> <21754.48293.955801.232338@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 07:09:13 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: CShDOWuNaEA08XURWw3njMFiCKQ Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Bad license and attribution by ChromiumOS and CoreOS From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Cc: Gentoo Trustees Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 5d3fef59-184a-42ed-a61a-8ce3c103d1dc X-Archives-Hash: f1a0d5a6ac9b4aa45595f176cf9c9289 On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 3:53 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >> Since this is a copy of Gentoo ebuilds this is demonstrably wrong, the >> copyrights on the files themselves are intact. Copyright is obviously >> Gentoo Foundation, and license is GPL-2. > > Thanks for noticing this. Quoting the GPL-2: > > 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program > except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt > otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is > void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. > > Does this apply here? It would mean that Google's rights to distribute > the Portage tree have been terminated. I'd probably talk to a lawyer before celebrating the death of Google. All the copyright notices in the files are intact. As far as I can tell Google hasn't done anything that actually violates the GPL. The only complaint here is that there is a readme file with a different copyright notice inside. The issue is trivially correctable by Google by simply fixing the notice, or clarifying what it applies to. No court is going to prefer permanently terminating Google's rights to distribute ChromeOS over simply letting them clean things up. Besides, is the goal of Gentoo really to kill off the #1 used open source desktop OS in the world which is based on Gentoo? That hardly sounds like "Gentoo lives for the community, by the community" as stated in the Foundation's charter. The purpose of our copyrights is to preserve Gentoo so that all can benefit from it, not to club people over the head with if they dare to actually use Gentoo and make a mistake. Honestly, I'm a bit concerned by some of the talk in this thread. What kind of message to we want to send to companies or organizations that use Gentoo? Do we really want the message to be "better not slip up, because Gentoo is the kind of group that will get your site taken down on a weekend over a readme file?" Don't get me wrong - I think Google has benefitted a great deal from Gentoo and I'd love to see they contribute back more actively than they already do (we do have people doing 10% time work for Gentoo and we have benefitted from past GSoC). How would we want to be treated in the reverse situation? I was annoyed when it seemed like everybody was over-reacting over the eudev copyright notice fiasco. Copyright is complicated, and most people working on software are not lawyers, and since there isn't a ton of open source case law even the lawyers can disagree on where the lines are. When somebody infringes on your copyright the solution is to work with them to fix things, so that the scope of open source software is increased and the public benefits, not to act like the RIAA. Since we are an open community, we make our mistakes in the public light - we should afford the same leniency to others since we WANT others to act as open communities as well. I'm sure if we ask Google nicely to clean things up they will. That is the best outcome for the general public, and the best outcome for Gentoo. Remember, we can borrow their code as well, and some of our devs do just that. If we have trouble getting through to them the legal issues would allow us to escalate things, but that can be done in a way that creates opportunities ("hey, while we have you on the phone, did you realize how much you benefit from Gentoo, and are there ways we can better partner to improve things for all of our users?"). Why make enemies when we can make friends? -- Rich