[gentoo-trustees] copyright forms and new devs

[gentoo-trustees] copyright forms and new devs

[Deedra Waters]

hi guys,

I'm posting this to both lists, because I think this  involves both groups. I also wanted to wait for the next managers meeting, but with all the new devs coming in, feedback now would be appreciated.

With all the questions being raised  now about the copyright assignment form, should I stop asking people to sign the current form as they come in? The reason I ask this is because if we create a new form, everyone will have to sign that form reguardless. 

If the current form isn't enforceable, then having people sign it doesn't really do us much good, on top of that, we also need to find out the rules behind minors signing copyright forms. Currently, we have a lot of devs who are under 18 and I can think of a couple of devs who are under 18 who have signed this form.

Feedback on this would really be appreciated.

Thanks!



-- 
Gentoo Linux: dmwaters@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org

--
gentoo-trustees@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright forms and new devs

[Kurt Lieber]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 457 bytes --]

On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 08:26:30AM -0500 or thereabouts, Deedra Waters wrote:
> If the current form isn't enforceable, then having people sign it doesn't really do us much good

Regardless of whether or not it's enforceable, I think enough devs have
expressed concern about the things it purports to enforce.  

IMO, we should heed those concerns, stop requiring new devs to sign the doc
and figure out a way to get a better doc in place.

--kurt

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright forms and new devs

[Corey Shields]

On Thursday 01 July 2004 08:37 am, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> Regardless of whether or not it's enforceable, I think enough devs have
> expressed concern about the things it purports to enforce.
>
> IMO, we should heed those concerns, stop requiring new devs to sign the doc
> and figure out a way to get a better doc in place.

There is really no reason to continue signing copyright over to Gentoo 
Technologies, so until this all changes to the new Foundation, I have to 
agree with putting these on hold, with the agreement that they will be 
signing one later.

Cheers!

-- 
Corey Shields - Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields

--
gentoo-trustees@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright forms and new devs

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1109 bytes --]

On Thursday 01 July 2004 15:40, Corey Shields wrote:
> On Thursday 01 July 2004 08:37 am, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> > Regardless of whether or not it's enforceable, I think enough devs
> > have expressed concern about the things it purports to enforce.
> >
> > IMO, we should heed those concerns, stop requiring new devs to sign
> > the doc and figure out a way to get a better doc in place.
>
> There is really no reason to continue signing copyright over to Gentoo
> Technologies, so until this all changes to the new Foundation, I have
> to agree with putting these on hold, with the agreement that they will
> be signing one later.

Appart from the fact that enough people (including trustees (myself 
included)) have not actually signed the statement, the statement is 
indeed broken so I agree on postponing it. Also we might not need the 
whole copyright. The only thing we want to be able to do is to fight 
battles in court without having to make many many party in the battle.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-trustees] Re: [gentoo-managers] Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright forms and new devs

[John Davis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1497 bytes --]

On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 09:56, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Thursday 01 July 2004 15:40, Corey Shields wrote:
> > On Thursday 01 July 2004 08:37 am, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> > > Regardless of whether or not it's enforceable, I think enough devs
> > > have expressed concern about the things it purports to enforce.
> > >
> > > IMO, we should heed those concerns, stop requiring new devs to sign
> > > the doc and figure out a way to get a better doc in place.
> >
> > There is really no reason to continue signing copyright over to Gentoo
> > Technologies, so until this all changes to the new Foundation, I have
> > to agree with putting these on hold, with the agreement that they will
> > be signing one later.
> 
> Appart from the fact that enough people (including trustees (myself 
> included)) have not actually signed the statement, the statement is 
> indeed broken so I agree on postponing it. Also we might not need the 
> whole copyright. The only thing we want to be able to do is to fight 
> battles in court without having to make many many party in the battle.
> 
> Paul

Agreed.

Like I said on -core, I am willing to talk to the FSF/EFF and see if we
can get some pro-bono legal advice. Are there any objections to me doing
this immediately?

Cheers,
-- 
John Davis
Gentoo Linux Developer
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~zhen>

----
GnuPG Public Key: <http://dev.gentoo.org/~zhen/zhen_pub.asc>
Fingerprint: 4F9E 41F6 D072 5C1A 636C  2D46 B92C 4823 E281 41BB

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-trustees] Re: [gentoo-managers] Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright forms and new devs

[Corey Shields]

On Thursday 01 July 2004 10:11 pm, John Davis wrote:
> Agreed.
>
> Like I said on -core, I am willing to talk to the FSF/EFF and see if we
> can get some pro-bono legal advice. Are there any objections to me doing
> this immediately?

Already tried..  they don't have anyone there with NFP type experience.

Cheers!

-C

-- 
Corey Shields - Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields

--
gentoo-trustees@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-trustees] Re: [gentoo-managers] Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright forms and new devs

[Corey Shields]

On Friday 02 July 2004 08:10 am, Corey Shields wrote:
> On Thursday 01 July 2004 10:11 pm, John Davis wrote:
> > Agreed.
> >
> > Like I said on -core, I am willing to talk to the FSF/EFF and see if we
> > can get some pro-bono legal advice. Are there any objections to me doing
> > this immediately?
>
> Already tried..  they don't have anyone there with NFP type experience.

nevermind, that's not what you were going to contact them about..  sorry!

/me heads for some morning caffeine.

-- 
Corey Shields - Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields

--
gentoo-trustees@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-trustees] Re: [gentoo-managers] Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright forms and new devs

[John Davis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 881 bytes --]

On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 09:12, Corey Shields wrote:
> On Friday 02 July 2004 08:10 am, Corey Shields wrote:
> > On Thursday 01 July 2004 10:11 pm, John Davis wrote:
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > Like I said on -core, I am willing to talk to the FSF/EFF and see if we
> > > can get some pro-bono legal advice. Are there any objections to me doing
> > > this immediately?
> >
> > Already tried..  they don't have anyone there with NFP type experience.
> 
> nevermind, that's not what you were going to contact them about..  sorry!
> 
> /me heads for some morning caffeine.

Heh, no problem.

I will be contacting both of those organizations today then.

Cheers,
-- 
John Davis
Gentoo Linux Developer
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~zhen>

----
GnuPG Public Key: <http://dev.gentoo.org/~zhen/zhen_pub.asc>
Fingerprint: 4F9E 41F6 D072 5C1A 636C  2D46 B92C 4823 E281 41BB

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-trustees] Re: [gentoo-managers] Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright forms and new devs

[John Davis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 676 bytes --]

On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 23:11, John Davis wrote:

> Like I said on -core, I am willing to talk to the FSF/EFF and see if we
> can get some pro-bono legal advice. Are there any objections to me doing
> this immediately?
> 
> Cheers,

I contaced the EFF this morning (10:30 EST) regarding legal advice on
our Copyright Assignment document, and if I do not hear back from them
(or if they cannot do what we are asking), then I will contact the FSF.


Regards,
-- 
John Davis
Gentoo Linux Developer
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~zhen>

----
GnuPG Public Key: <http://dev.gentoo.org/~zhen/zhen_pub.asc>
Fingerprint: 4F9E 41F6 D072 5C1A 636C  2D46 B92C 4823 E281 41BB

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-trustees] Re: [gentoo-managers] Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright forms and new devs

[John Davis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 900 bytes --]

On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 11:01, John Davis wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 23:11, John Davis wrote:
> 
> > Like I said on -core, I am willing to talk to the FSF/EFF and see if we
> > can get some pro-bono legal advice. Are there any objections to me doing
> > this immediately?
> > 
> > Cheers,
> 
> I contaced the EFF this morning (10:30 EST) regarding legal advice on
> our Copyright Assignment document, and if I do not hear back from them
> (or if they cannot do what we are asking), then I will contact the FSF.
> 
> 
> Regards,

Hi all -
I did not hear from the EFF via email, so I mailed the FSF this morning
and am going to call the EFF later this afternoon.

Cheers,
-- 
John Davis
Gentoo Linux Developer
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~zhen>

----
GnuPG Public Key: <http://dev.gentoo.org/~zhen/zhen_pub.asc>
Fingerprint: 4F9E 41F6 D072 5C1A 636C  2D46 B92C 4823 E281 41BB

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-trustees] Re: [gentoo-managers] Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright forms and new devs

[Joshua Brindle]

Kurt Lieber wrote:

>On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 08:26:30AM -0500 or thereabouts, Deedra Waters wrote:
>  
>
>>If the current form isn't enforceable, then having people sign it doesn't really do us much good
>>    
>>
>
>Regardless of whether or not it's enforceable, I think enough devs have
>expressed concern about the things it purports to enforce.  
>
>IMO, we should heed those concerns, stop requiring new devs to sign the doc
>and figure out a way to get a better doc in place.
>
>--kurt
>  
>
Ok, so I was just talking to dmwaters on irc and she mentioned this part 
that I may have missed, that efforts were going on to redraft a new 
contract. I'd like to take this chance to voice my concern about this 
and suggest that we forego a contract of this nature (if we can even do 
it legally wrt <18, other countries, etc, etc) and treat copyright 
assignment just like any other devrel issue. Basically I suggest just 
saying that some inclusive list of files such as ebuilds, init scripts, 
gentoo specific scripts in cvs, what-have-you and treat it like a devrel 
issue if that doesn't happen.

What I'm thinking is that we don't have a contract saying you won't do 
something malicious in an ebuild, and we don't need to. If something 
like that happened disciplinary action would be taken against the dev 
and I assume he/she would be dismissed. Why is the copyright assignment 
any different? If a developer doesn't assign the copyright we just say 
'hey, you can't do that, you can either change it or remove it and cease 
being a dev'

A contract is superfluous and chances are it's unenforcable anyway, no 
other (?) GPL projects do this do they? Do other community based distros?


Joshua Brindle

--
gentoo-trustees@gentoo.org mailing list