1 |
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> Announcing once to -dev-announce due to the general importance of this |
3 |
> topic to the community, but ALL replies should go to -nfp, or to |
4 |
> trustees@ if you must, or to /dev/null if you shouldn't. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Before I start, yes, the trustees realize that there are legal issues |
7 |
> around copyright assignment in general, and that various workaround |
8 |
> exist and may or may not work, such as various contributor licensing |
9 |
> agreements that are used by various organizations, especially in |
10 |
> Europe. The purpose of this thread isn't really to debate this topic, |
11 |
> as it might be moot in any case. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> The question we would like to get feedback from the Gentoo community |
14 |
> on is this: is copyright assignment (or something like it) something |
15 |
> Gentoo should even be pursuing, and if so, to what degree? Should we |
16 |
> turn away contributions where assignments are not made? Should we aim |
17 |
> for a voluntary but encouraged approach as used by KDE e.V.? Should |
18 |
> we pursue this for some Gentoo projects but not others (such as for |
19 |
> portage (the package manager), and perhaps eclass code, but not |
20 |
> ebuilds)? |
21 |
|
22 |
We have certainly 'gotten by' without one. So my question to you is |
23 |
more along the lines of why we would pursue such action. |
24 |
|
25 |
* Not everyone would sign an agreement. |
26 |
* The agreement can't cover all past work, because not all (former) |
27 |
contributors will sign, or are even alive. |
28 |
* Are there any legal risks, if any, for not owning the copyright directly? |
29 |
|
30 |
> |
31 |
> Set aside the mechanics of how this would be accomplished for now. I |
32 |
> don't think that this is likely to be the source of any great |
33 |
> controversy, though if we pursue this we will no doubt solicit |
34 |
> comments on any proposals. Likewise, set aside any issues pertaining |
35 |
> to history of what the status quo actually is. The larger issue is |
36 |
> where Gentoo wants to be with regard to "ownership" (or whatever the |
37 |
> appropriate term is) of its code. Where we are going is more |
38 |
> important than how we get there. |
39 |
> |
40 |
> The main arguments for owning copyright of something would be: |
41 |
> 1. Legal simplicity |
42 |
> 2. Ability to re-license (obviously in accordance with the social |
43 |
> contract, and this could even be enforced with a model like the FSFe's |
44 |
> FLA) |
45 |
|
46 |
We can only re-license code that we have an agreement for. Is having |
47 |
YY% of the code under an agreement worthwhile? |
48 |
|
49 |
> 3. Standing to pursue copyleft license violations |
50 |
|
51 |
Same point as 2. |
52 |
|
53 |
> |
54 |
> The main arguments for not owning copyright of something would be: |
55 |
> 1. Some potential contributors might refuse to contribute |
56 |
> 2. Ability to merge license-compatible code without needing the |
57 |
> cooperation of its author |
58 |
> |
59 |
> There are numerous details to be worked out either way, and we don't |
60 |
> need to settle those in advance. |
61 |
> |
62 |
> Feedback from any member of the Gentoo community (loosely defined) is |
63 |
> welcome. If anybody has STRONG feelings on this matter, please be |
64 |
> sure to voice them either in public or in private, as I can't |
65 |
> guarantee that there will be another opportunity to do so. |
66 |
> |
67 |
> For those wondering where this is going: Right now the Foundation is |
68 |
> soliciting info from other organizations and will be soliciting legal |
69 |
> advice regarding how we might implement whatever course of action we |
70 |
> choose to take. If community consensus seems to be obvious in the |
71 |
> replies to this email we may very well form concrete proposals and put |
72 |
> them out for comment before enacting new policy. If consensus is not |
73 |
> clear we may seek further input in the form of binding or non-binding |
74 |
> votes from the Foundation membership. Obviously our goal isn't to |
75 |
> stir up a hornet's nest, so assume that the Trustees will use |
76 |
> reasonable discretion. |
77 |
> |
78 |
> For the Trustees (who are welcome to chime in with any |
79 |
> questions/nuances I missed), |
80 |
> |
81 |
> Richard Freeman |
82 |
> |