[Fwd: Re: [gentoo-trustees] joint copyright agreement]

[Fwd: Re: [gentoo-trustees] joint copyright agreement]

[Daniel Ostrow]

Forwarded to the list per Seemant's request.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: Seemant Kulleen <seemant@gentoo.org>
To: Daniel Ostrow <dostrow@gentoo.org>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-trustees] joint copyright agreement
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:25:48 -0400

On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 10:37:38PM -0400, Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> Oh and one other important distinction. As I forgot to address the
> question of "Why should the genkernel developers need to sign this
> agreement if some future wizbang genkernel replacement developed on
> berlios infra doesn't have to?"

Coming back to grant's point a bit.  There are projects that were/are
developed entirely on non-gentoo infrastructure (I believe the eselect
stuff, for example), yet is becoming default on gentoo systems
(opengl-update, for starters, has gone the way of the dodo, to be
replaced by eselect).

How does this agreement play to things like that?  If eselect goes on
(and based on its technical merits, there is every reason that it
should) to become the default tool in gentoo, then where does that leave
us?  I'm with Grant on this: I'm not convinced.

Thanks,

Seemant

-- 
Daniel Ostrow
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
Gentoo/{PPC,PPC64,DevRel}
dostrow@gentoo.org

-- 
gentoo-trustees@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [Fwd: Re: [gentoo-trustees] joint copyright agreement]

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 587 bytes --]

> From: Seemant Kulleen <seemant@gentoo.org>
> How does this agreement play to things like that?  If eselect goes on
> (and based on its technical merits, there is every reason that it
> should) to become the default tool in gentoo, then where does that leave
> us?  I'm with Grant on this: I'm not convinced.

Unsurprisingly, eselect was exactly what I was thinking about when I
raised that question.

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

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

Re: [Fwd: Re: [gentoo-trustees] joint copyright agreement]

[Daniel Ostrow]

On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 11:49 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > From: Seemant Kulleen <seemant@gentoo.org>
> > How does this agreement play to things like that?  If eselect goes on
> > (and based on its technical merits, there is every reason that it
> > should) to become the default tool in gentoo, then where does that leave
> > us?  I'm with Grant on this: I'm not convinced.
> 
> Unsurprisingly, eselect was exactly what I was thinking about when I
> raised that question.

The other thing is that only code written after the agreement is signed
is covered.

This would mean that if eselect were to become and official project and
it was decided that all official projects needed to have the protection
of the foundation that any code written from that point forward would be
covered under the agreement, not the code that came before. For a
project as robust as eselect that would mean that until a fair few
revisions happened most of the code would only be copyrighted to the
original authors.

I also believe that it should be up to the individual project whether
they want to have their code protected. However, it is, (and I feel like
a broken record here) an all or nothing deal for that project. Having
only a few members of a project sign is futile. I'm just saying that I
feel that copyright protection and official status should go hand in
hand. I have no problem with the code being hosted on our infra, I do
have a problem marking the code as official Gentoo code and having no
way to protect it.

-- 
Daniel Ostrow
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
Gentoo/{PPC,PPC64,DevRel}
dostrow@gentoo.org

-- 
gentoo-trustees@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [Fwd: Re: [gentoo-trustees] joint copyright agreement]

[Daniel Ostrow]

> I also believe that it should be up to the individual project whether
> they want to have their code protected. 

I realize that the above may sound like a retraction of my original
stance...it is not. My original stance was poorly worded. I still feel
with 100% certainty that official status and copyright protection MUST
go hand in hand.

In my original comment:

"Unfortunately I feel we have to take the position of signing it is
mandatory for all those working on major gentoo-centric projects."

s/major gentoo-centric/official Gentoo/

The rest of the content remains the same.
 
-- 
Daniel Ostrow
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
Gentoo/{PPC,PPC64,DevRel}
dostrow@gentoo.org

-- 
gentoo-trustees@gentoo.org mailing list