From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dsk8P-0006x4-VI for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:30:58 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j6DGTsJ0010921; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:29:54 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j6DGTspN024354 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:29:54 GMT Received: from bmb24.med.uth.tmc.edu ([129.106.207.24] helo=localhost) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1Dsk8N-0006xT-W9 for gentoo-trustees@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:30:56 +0000 Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:30:56 -0500 From: Grant Goodyear To: gentoo-trustees@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff Message-ID: <20050713163056.GM14373@bmb24.uth.tmc.edu> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-trustees@lists.gentoo.org References: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-trustees@gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="BRE3mIcgqKzpedwo" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: 21308ba1-13a8-4597-9d16-997ee4a4a076 X-Archives-Hash: 7a512494277ec42c1547d5d9f560edb6 --BRE3mIcgqKzpedwo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Deedra Waters wrote: [Tue Jul 12 2005, 04:58:56PM CDT] > 1. We only worry about copyrighting code that gentoo actually owns, > mainly catalyst, portage, the installer and things like that. > Also any documentation that gentoo has written along with the utilities > that may have been written for portage etc etc. That should make life much simpler. =20 > 2. it would be a co-ownership basically, meaning thatif i wrote > documentation or parts of documentation, i would retain the rights to > those docs, but gentoo owns the entire thing. Seems reasonable. > 3. only gentoo would have the ability to sue. This is more a legal > thing, but basically it's so that if we ever had to go into law to > defend the copyright, the other person can't force us to drag all of > our developers into court. Although I think it's reasonable in principle, I would feel better if I had a better idea of what exactly is involved. Who would need to sign some sort of co-ownership document? Since we're still dealing with copyright, does this method solve the problems with under-age or non-US citizens who cannot turn over copyright? =20 -g2boojum- --=20 Grant Goodyear=09 Gentoo Developer g2boojum@gentoo.org http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 --BRE3mIcgqKzpedwo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFC1UHAptxxUuD2W3YRAsYmAJ9PSi5qLNTqD+HkynnetFBAaIeJhgCeMPsz g7j6DuPvB2meaO6O9zTOA4c= =35GT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --BRE3mIcgqKzpedwo-- -- gentoo-trustees@gentoo.org mailing list