1 |
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 01:09:25AM -0400, Jon Portnoy wrote: |
2 |
> > Would it not be possible for copyright to be assigned to Gentoo and the |
3 |
> > author of the ebuild? |
4 |
> |
5 |
> That's what we needed information from Daniel's lawyer about. |
6 |
|
7 |
I've been trying to get people to keep their names in the copyright line for |
8 |
over a year, but no one has really started doing it. To my knowledge, it is |
9 |
better to have multiple official copyright holders for GPL code than just a |
10 |
single copyright holder. I would like all our ebuilds to have a copyright |
11 |
like this: |
12 |
|
13 |
# Copyright 2003 Gentoo Technologies, Joe User, and others (see cvs |
14 |
# changelog.) Distributed under the GPL version 2. |
15 |
|
16 |
I don't see why this would be a problem for anyone, and makes a lot more |
17 |
sense than what we are doing now. |
18 |
|
19 |
What we are doing now began way back when we figured out that slapping a |
20 |
"Copyright 2000 Gentoo Technologies, Inc." allowed us to comply with the GPL |
21 |
and get back to coding. That's all there is to our current "policy," folks. |
22 |
I am very much hoping that people will start using shared copyrights soon. |
23 |
I think it's very bad to continue using the single "Copyright Gentoo" one, |
24 |
and hope that some developers will start doing this. This is one trend that |
25 |
I can't start, since all the work I do is under the Gentoo Technologies, |
26 |
Inc. name. While I know that I'm not going to rip Gentoo off, the primary |
27 |
benefit to me is that it quells those who enjoy being paranoid about my |
28 |
intentions. |
29 |
|
30 |
The rules should be: |
31 |
|
32 |
ebuilds should be copyright Gentoo Technologies, Inc. *and* the original |
33 |
author/submitter, with a note for all additional cvs committers. What this |
34 |
does is prevent Gentoo or the original committer or later contributors from |
35 |
changing the license away from the GPL 2 unless all copyright holders agree. |
36 |
This basically makes it practically impossible for code to be hijacked from |
37 |
our tree, or from our users (by me presumably, after going on some kind of |
38 |
evil kick.) This seems near-ideal. It would be helpful if a GPL and |
39 |
copyright expert could review and comment. |
40 |
|
41 |
> > I believe that this has been discussed previously on this list (when I get |
42 |
> > a chance I'll search my archive) and that there was an agreement reached |
43 |
> > between Gentoo and an educational institution on this very matter. |
44 |
> |
45 |
> Was that agreement actually reached? I have been away from development |
46 |
> and not very involved for a couple weeks. |
47 |
|
48 |
I need to contact them; haven't had time to follow up after LWE. After |
49 |
thinking a bit about this, it's probably best that I ask Richard Stallman |
50 |
what he recommends since he is likely to be much more versed in the ins and |
51 |
outs of this kind of thing than the typical IP lawyer who is not very |
52 |
familiar with the GPL. I'll cc this email to Richard and see what he says. |
53 |
|
54 |
Richard, your input would certainly be welcome, and I can forward all |
55 |
replies you send me to the gentoo-dev list (gentoo-dev is subscriber post |
56 |
only.) |
57 |
|
58 |
Best Regards, |
59 |
|
60 |
-- |
61 |
Daniel Robbins |
62 |
Chief Architect, Gentoo Linux |
63 |
http://www.gentoo.org |