Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild copyright assignment
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 10:10:20
Message-Id: 1424599777.2735.0@NeddySeagoon_Static
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] ebuild copyright assignment by Jeroen Roovers
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