1 |
On 2015.02.18 07:40, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 06:39:51 -0500 |
3 |
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > the policy is not "it must be Gentoo copyright", but "it must have |
6 |
> a |
7 |
> > header that says Gentoo copyright even though there's no legal |
8 |
> basis |
9 |
> > for it". |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Correct, but I have my doubts about the allegedly wobbly legal basis. |
12 |
> I |
13 |
> do vividly recall reading these: |
14 |
> |
15 |
> <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright/index.xml> |
16 |
> <http://web.archive.org/web/20040604022011/http://www.gentoo.org/doc/ |
17 |
> en/policy.xml> |
18 |
> |
19 |
> Copyright in ebuilds (and documentation) should always be assigned to |
20 |
> Gentoo Technologies. Developers must never put their own names in |
21 |
> copyright lines. For more information, please see |
22 |
> <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright-assignment.xml> |
23 |
> <http://web.archive.org/web/20040624223240/http://www.gentoo.org/ |
24 |
> proj/en/devrel/copyright-assignment.xml> |
25 |
> |
26 |
> (Page moved to |
27 |
> <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright/index.xml> |
28 |
> <http://web.archive.org/web/20040618235041/http://www.gentoo.org/ |
29 |
> proj/en/devrel/copyright/index.xml>) |
30 |
> |
31 |
[snip] |
32 |
|
33 |
> |
34 |
> jer |
35 |
> |
36 |
> |
37 |
> |
38 |
|
39 |
|
40 |
Here's some history ... |
41 |
|
42 |
Gentoo Technologies Inc. was interested in using the Gentoo codebase |
43 |
commercially. It was not a financial success and the assets of Gentoo |
44 |
Technologies Inc. were transferred to the Gentoo Foundation Inc. when |
45 |
drobbins left Gentoo. That would be about 2004, when the Foundation |
46 |
was established. Commercial use was easier if Gentoo Technologies Inc. |
47 |
held the copyright. |
48 |
|
49 |
Its unclear if anyone actually completed copyright assignment paperwork |
50 |
at any time. The legal standing of the ebuild header is also unclear as |
51 |
it has never been tested in court. |
52 |
|
53 |
The remaining idea behind it today is that it might ensure that the |
54 |
Foundation is the target of any legal action resulting from an ebuild |
55 |
and conversely can take legal action to defend an ebuild. |
56 |
I say 'might' as international copyright is a minefield. Its wider than |
57 |
just ebuilds, its wherever Foundation copyright is asserted. |
58 |
|
59 |
Both Gentoo Technologies Inc. and Gentoo Foundation Inc. were/are New |
60 |
Mexico legal entities, so are subject to New Mexico law. Of course, if |
61 |
you are not in New Mexico, or even the USA, that law may not apply to |
62 |
you and that's where the minefield starts. |
63 |
|
64 |
-- |
65 |
Regards, |
66 |
|
67 |
Roy Bamford |
68 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
69 |
elections |
70 |
gentoo-ops |
71 |
forum-mods |
72 |
trustees |