[gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff

[gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff

[Deedra Waters]

all,

I want to start this out as a small discussion to start with and take it
to core once i get a general idea of how people feel.

What i want to know from you all is do we really want to have/deal with
the copyright stuff?

My feeling is that while copyrights are/can be a good thing, i'm
starting to think that with the major differences that's in our
developer base, that we're not going to get a complete copyright doc
that everyone can and will be able to handle. Some countries can't sign
over copyrights, while we have devs that are under the legal age to sign
documents.

Thoughts/feedback?


-- 
Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure -
dmwaters@gentoo.org
Gentoo linux: http://www.gentoo.org

-- 
gentoo-trustees@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2836 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 12:37:26PM -0700, Deedra Waters wrote:
> I want to start this out as a small discussion to start with and take it
> to core once i get a general idea of how people feel.
> 
> What i want to know from you all is do we really want to have/deal with
> the copyright stuff?
> 
> My feeling is that while copyrights are/can be a good thing, i'm
> starting to think that with the major differences that's in our
> developer base, that we're not going to get a complete copyright doc
> that everyone can and will be able to handle. Some countries can't sign
> over copyrights, while we have devs that are under the legal age to sign
> documents.

True about the age, but not true about not being able to transfer
copyrights. We are talking about transferrable rights here, not moral
rights.

I still feel that a copyright assignment is the best option if we can not
have the copyright available for both parties (i.e. both the developer /and/
the foundation can take action against copyright violations). Having dual
copyrights is more troublesome than full copyright assignment, since full
copyright assignment is probably listed in all relevant laws (Copyright Act
in the USA, Auteursrecht in Belgium, etc.) while dual copyright is more
something exotic.

Another possibility is an exclusive license. With an exclusive license, the 
Foundation can protect the code (take appropriate measures, ...) while the 
original author still retains the copyright. The drawback is that the
original author can not use the code beyond what the Foundation and the
contract (= the license) sais ("exclusive" license).

But, back to the why's: I do feel that we need to have this protection.
With the copyright (or exclusive license) in the Foundation's hands,
Gentoo's code is completely contained within the project. We are then able
to protect ourselves in case of copyright violations.

Unless I am mistaken, copyright violations are the only reason why we would
want copyright assignment (it is not the Foundation's intention to change
license; as a matter of fact, we explicitly made clear that we will never
change license). Yet copyright violations are a big issue.

One frequent violation is removing the creditation given on the code (or
documentation). That may seem small, but for a free software/documentation
contribution, it is very important to the contributor. What good is the
code/documentation to the contributor if no-one knows he did it?

Other violations are for instance modifications without making the changes
open (case of GPL), using the code/documentation as part of a different,
non-free work, etc.

Wkr,
      Sven Vermeulen

-- 
  Documentation project leader - Gentoo Foundation Trustee

  The Gentoo Project   <<< http://www.gentoo.org >>>

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

Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff

[Deedra Waters]

If you look at the previous copyright thread on core however, certain
countries will not let you sign over copyrights namely germany and italy
are the 2 that i remember.

I agree that gentoo should be able to protect it's software. but how.
The license might be 1 way to go, agreed.
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Sven Vermeulen wrote:

> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:17:59 +0200
> From: Sven Vermeulen <swift@gentoo.org>
> To: gentoo-trustees@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff
>
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 12:37:26PM -0700, Deedra Waters wrote:
> > I want to start this out as a small discussion to start with and take it
> > to core once i get a general idea of how people feel.
> >
> > What i want to know from you all is do we really want to have/deal with
> > the copyright stuff?
> >
> > My feeling is that while copyrights are/can be a good thing, i'm
> > starting to think that with the major differences that's in our
> > developer base, that we're not going to get a complete copyright doc
> > that everyone can and will be able to handle. Some countries can't sign
> > over copyrights, while we have devs that are under the legal age to sign
> > documents.
>
> True about the age, but not true about not being able to transfer
> copyrights. We are talking about transferrable rights here, not moral
> rights.
>
> I still feel that a copyright assignment is the best option if we can not
> have the copyright available for both parties (i.e. both the developer /and/
> the foundation can take action against copyright violations). Having dual
> copyrights is more troublesome than full copyright assignment, since full
> copyright assignment is probably listed in all relevant laws (Copyright Act
> in the USA, Auteursrecht in Belgium, etc.) while dual copyright is more
> something exotic.
>
> Another possibility is an exclusive license. With an exclusive license, the
> Foundation can protect the code (take appropriate measures, ...) while the
> original author still retains the copyright. The drawback is that the
> original author can not use the code beyond what the Foundation and the
> contract (= the license) sais ("exclusive" license).
>
> But, back to the why's: I do feel that we need to have this protection.
> With the copyright (or exclusive license) in the Foundation's hands,
> Gentoo's code is completely contained within the project. We are then able
> to protect ourselves in case of copyright violations.
>
> Unless I am mistaken, copyright violations are the only reason why we would
> want copyright assignment (it is not the Foundation's intention to change
> license; as a matter of fact, we explicitly made clear that we will never
> change license). Yet copyright violations are a big issue.
>
> One frequent violation is removing the creditation given on the code (or
> documentation). That may seem small, but for a free software/documentation
> contribution, it is very important to the contributor. What good is the
> code/documentation to the contributor if no-one knows he did it?
>
> Other violations are for instance modifications without making the changes
> open (case of GPL), using the code/documentation as part of a different,
> non-free work, etc.
>
> Wkr,
>       Sven Vermeulen
>
>

-- 
Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure -
dmwaters@gentoo.org
Gentoo linux: http://www.gentoo.org

-- 
gentoo-trustees@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 623 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 01:21:24PM -0700, Deedra Waters wrote:
> If you look at the previous copyright thread on core however, certain
> countries will not let you sign over copyrights namely germany and italy
> are the 2 that i remember.

The people who stated that are misinformed or did not tell everything
correctly (perhaps because English is not their mother language).

In Europe, copyright transfers are daily routine. That includes Italy and
Germany.

Wkr,
      Sven Vermeulen

-- 
  Documentation project leader - Gentoo Foundation Trustee

  The Gentoo Project   <<< http://www.gentoo.org >>>

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

Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff

[Donnie Berkholz]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> I still feel that a copyright assignment is the best option if we can not
> have the copyright available for both parties (i.e. both the developer /and/
> the foundation can take action against copyright violations). Having dual
> copyrights is more troublesome than full copyright assignment, since full
> copyright assignment is probably listed in all relevant laws (Copyright Act
> in the USA, Auteursrecht in Belgium, etc.) while dual copyright is more
> something exotic.
> 
> Another possibility is an exclusive license. With an exclusive license, the 
> Foundation can protect the code (take appropriate measures, ...) while the 
> original author still retains the copyright. The drawback is that the
> original author can not use the code beyond what the Foundation and the
> contract (= the license) sais ("exclusive" license).

How about this: By default, everybody signs off to one of the above.
Strong objectioners have the option of signing a nonexclusive license
instead.

Thanks,
Donnie
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCwK6hXVaO67S1rtsRAuPLAJ0dEHApkA5kRjnfBrMhEM7XQulu5ACfdLED
RjIK0rgPDUKHjhbJ49sWw7c=
=e0lP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-trustees@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff

[Donnie Berkholz]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> How about this: By default, everybody signs off to one of the above.
> Strong objectioners have the option of signing a nonexclusive license
> instead.

Er, try "objectors" instead.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCwLMYXVaO67S1rtsRAuxRAJ9JJmkHjFjYUJegrLhaZiqmMcbg4ACgvzHM
nNRVDWkHubdE1seMPXW/bYI=
=jRMV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-trustees@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff

[Corey Shields]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>  
>
>>How about this: By default, everybody signs off to one of the above.
>>Strong objectioners have the option of signing a nonexclusive license
>>instead.
>>    
>>
>
>Er, try "objectors" instead.
>  
>

That's the thing, though..   it doesn't really work unless it is an all 
or nothing thing.  Either we have to get the legal copyright of 
everything up-front in order to protect it if necessary, or we have to 
round up the authors and rightful copyright owners when that time comes.

I'm inclined to say "screw it" and just hope Portage is never ripped 
off..   I've had too many people voice opinions against any kind of 
copyright assignment despite the fact that it would be in their best 
interest.  It is their development time and efforts at stake here.  If 
we offer to help protect that and they don't want it, we shouldn't force 
it on them.

Cheers!

-C
-- 
gentoo-trustees@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff

[Kumba]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> 
> How about this: By default, everybody signs off to one of the above.
> Strong objectioners have the option of signing a nonexclusive license
> instead.

Call me the anarchist of the pack, but what are other organizations doing, like 
*BSD, debian, or even other open-sourced projects as far as copyrights go?  Why 
not just keep it simple and adopt the mechanism used by the upstream linux 
kernel team (which based on gregkh's description, seems to fit us the best, imho).

As it currently stands, it seems every idea proposed so far has a flaw or 
flaw(s) that prohibits, limits, excludes, or annoys one or more of our devs. 
Surely this situtation, or a variant, has been tackled before, so I'm sure 
somewhere out there, there is something workable for us (possibly with minor 
modifications).


--Kumba

-- 
Gentoo/MIPS Team Lead
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees

"Such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands 
do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere."  --Elrond
-- 
gentoo-trustees@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff

[Deedra Waters]

I'd suggest the license. I suspect that as long as the terms are right,
that people won't have problems with the license. Trying to maintain
both a copyright, and a license would cause a lot of problems, and a
copyright is much harder to handle since we would have to get anyone
under 18 to get their parents to sign the thing etc etc etc.


On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Donnie Berkholz wrote:

> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 18:57:53 -0700
> From: Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@gentoo.org>
> To: Sven Vermeulen <swift@gentoo.org>
> Cc: gentoo-trustees@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> > I still feel that a copyright assignment is the best option if we can not
> > have the copyright available for both parties (i.e. both the developer /and/
> > the foundation can take action against copyright violations). Having dual
> > copyrights is more troublesome than full copyright assignment, since full
> > copyright assignment is probably listed in all relevant laws (Copyright Act
> > in the USA, Auteursrecht in Belgium, etc.) while dual copyright is more
> > something exotic.
> >
> > Another possibility is an exclusive license. With an exclusive license, the
> > Foundation can protect the code (take appropriate measures, ...) while the
> > original author still retains the copyright. The drawback is that the
> > original author can not use the code beyond what the Foundation and the
> > contract (= the license) sais ("exclusive" license).
>
> How about this: By default, everybody signs off to one of the above.
> Strong objectioners have the option of signing a nonexclusive license
> instead.
>
> Thanks,
> Donnie
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFCwK6hXVaO67S1rtsRAuPLAJ0dEHApkA5kRjnfBrMhEM7XQulu5ACfdLED
> RjIK0rgPDUKHjhbJ49sWw7c=
> =e0lP
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

-- 
Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure -
dmwaters@gentoo.org
Gentoo linux: http://www.gentoo.org

-- 
gentoo-trustees@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff

[Donnie Berkholz]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Kumba wrote:
> Call me the anarchist of the pack, but what are other organizations
> doing, like *BSD, debian, or even other open-sourced projects as far as
> copyrights go?  Why not just keep it simple and adopt the mechanism used
> by the upstream linux kernel team (which based on gregkh's description,
> seems to fit us the best, imho).

The reason I suggested this dual solution is that this is how the FSF
does it, although I'm not saying it's perfect. And while it is a bit
more maintenance, it seems like it offers the most benefits for both
sides. The foundation gets to protect everything that people are willing
to give it, and people who are unwilling to assign the copyright bear
the brunt of any infringements personally.

> As it currently stands, it seems every idea proposed so far has a flaw
> or flaw(s) that prohibits, limits, excludes, or annoys one or more of
> our devs. Surely this situtation, or a variant, has been tackled before,
> so I'm sure somewhere out there, there is something workable for us
> (possibly with minor modifications).

What's the flaw with this, again? I must've missed it.

Thanks,
Donnie
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCwMOBXVaO67S1rtsRAu4DAJ0XtGbI15dI17JazPwEuwx2gqO4owCdGPGN
MLsWXJT0aUGncLxzLZFqxRI=
=S9cF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-trustees@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff

[Donnie Berkholz]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Deedra Waters wrote:
> I'd suggest the license. I suspect that as long as the terms are right,
> that people won't have problems with the license. Trying to maintain
> both a copyright, and a license would cause a lot of problems, and a
> copyright is much harder to handle since we would have to get anyone
> under 18 to get their parents to sign the thing etc etc etc.

People under 18 can't consent to a license any more than an assignment,
so I don't understand your last point. But yes, maintaining both would
be more work. The question is: Is it worth it?

Thanks,
Donnie
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCwMO0XVaO67S1rtsRAk1BAKDgLzs1y0SOkNO2ThVfnMbs5nBEXwCgjFmv
ZQB0X4QB6xceRMVCzjggbxw=
=MyVE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-trustees@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff

[Daniel Robbins]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2619 bytes --]

Hi guys,
 I'm still on this list. You can remove me if you want, though. (If you're 
going to, please send me a
courtesy email to let me know when I've been bumped)
 My advice is to define a clear goal. What are you trying to accomplish? 
Then, talk to your lawyers about
some practical steps you can take to get as close to this goal as you can. 
Your lawyers can help you 
to determine what tradeoffs, if any, should be considered. 
 You might also want to ask your lawyers their opinion about how important 
they think this copyright
issue actually is. If it's very important, it might be worthwhile upsetting 
and potentially losing some
developers to fix it. If it isn't that important, then it might not be. 
Maybe there are some key areas that
you could straighten out more easily (like the Portage code itself) and then 
others you could at least 
temporarily ignore due to their complexity. I'm thinking of the actual 
ebuilds being a very complex issue.
Which is more likely to be ripped off? This should all factor into your 
plan.
 I have tried to tackle this issue in the past, and it is harder than it 
looks. I think I would have been more
successful if I had tried to straighten out copyrights for some key areas of 
Gentoo rather than try to tackle
everything at once. Ebuilds are particularly thorny because so many people 
have touched them. 
If fixing all the ebuilds is an impossible goal, then maybe focus on the 
possible instead?
 I hope you can find a good solution. If you're ever in need of any 
additional paperwork from me, please
let me know.
 -Daniel
 On 6/27/05, Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@gentoo.org> wrote: 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Deedra Waters wrote:
> > I'd suggest the license. I suspect that as long as the terms are right,
> > that people won't have problems with the license. Trying to maintain
> > both a copyright, and a license would cause a lot of problems, and a
> > copyright is much harder to handle since we would have to get anyone
> > under 18 to get their parents to sign the thing etc etc etc.
> 
> People under 18 can't consent to a license any more than an assignment,
> so I don't understand your last point. But yes, maintaining both would
> be more work. The question is: Is it worth it?
> 
> Thanks,
> Donnie
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQFCwMO0XVaO67S1rtsRAk1BAKDgLzs1y0SOkNO2ThVfnMbs5nBEXwCgjFmv
> ZQB0X4QB6xceRMVCzjggbxw=
> =MyVE
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> --
> gentoo-trustees@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3316 bytes --]

[gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff

[Deedra Waters]

I have a proposal that may keep everyone happy....

I talked with our lawyer today, and here's what i suggested.

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.

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.

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.


Thoughts/comments please?

Personally, i think that this is probably the best choice, and it should
make everyone happy.


-- 
Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure -
dmwaters@gentoo.org
Gentoo linux: http://www.gentoo.org

-- 
gentoo-trustees@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 710 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 02:58:56PM -0700, Deedra Waters wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 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.

This would be perfect, sort-of an exclusive license. 

Wkr,
      Sven Vermeulen

-- 
  Documentation project leader - Gentoo Foundation Trustee

  The Gentoo Project   <<< http://www.gentoo.org >>>

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

Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1075 bytes --]

On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 14:58 -0700, Deedra Waters wrote:
> 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 makes sense to me, since the vast majority of ebuilds aren't really
copyrightable anyway.

> 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.

I don't understand this. Could you clarify?

> 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.

I'm a little confused about what exactly you're proposing. Is it an
exclusive license, assigning a share of the rights or something else
altogether?

Thanks,
Donnie

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

Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff

[Deedra Waters]

It lets gentoo retain full ownership of things while letting the devs
who write code etc own what they write. Call it a co-ownership so to
speak.
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Donnie Berkholz wrote:

> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 04:33:27 -0700
> From: Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@gentoo.org>
> To: gentoo-trustees@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff
>
> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 14:58 -0700, Deedra Waters wrote:
> > 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 makes sense to me, since the vast majority of ebuilds aren't really
> copyrightable anyway.
>
> > 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.
>
> I don't understand this. Could you clarify?
>
> > 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.
>
> I'm a little confused about what exactly you're proposing. Is it an
> exclusive license, assigning a share of the rights or something else
> altogether?
>
> Thanks,
> Donnie
>

-- 
Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure -
dmwaters@gentoo.org
Gentoo linux: http://www.gentoo.org

-- 
gentoo-trustees@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1327 bytes --]

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.  

> 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?  

-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: [gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 473 bytes --]

Deedra Waters wrote: [Tue Jul 12 2005, 04:58:56PM CDT]
> I have a proposal that may keep everyone happy....

Oh, and can we move this discussion to -nfp?  To the best of my
knowledge -trustees still isn't publicly archived, so I'd like to get as
much discussion on -nfp as possible.

Thanks,
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 --]