From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.105.134.102] (helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dn6kU-0002pC-Vz for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 03:26:59 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j5S3QVCD031350; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 03:26:31 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 j5S3QUvV029128 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 03:26:31 GMT Received: from c-67-171-150-177.hsd1.or.comcast.net ([67.171.150.177] helo=[192.168.1.106]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1Dn6kS-0000sb-Qp; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 03:26:56 +0000 Message-ID: <42C0C382.7010903@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:26:58 -0700 From: Donnie Berkholz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050411) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en 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 To: Kumba CC: gentoo-trustees@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff References: <20050627201759.GA9776@gentoo.org> <42C0AEA1.7050108@gentoo.org> <42C0B6ED.6010808@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <42C0B6ED.6010808@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 2a8c71fd-7840-4f5e-89f9-8598e70980b3 X-Archives-Hash: d90af347a8f7ff32ea8d9f499ced07c6 -----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