On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 12:35 -0800, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 22:26 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> > Ned Ludd wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 13:10 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote:
> > >> I have a mostly user written ebuild in which he has put his copyright to
> > >> the header instead of the standard one so repoman is not happy about it.
> > >> What is the model we should follow these days? Since developers haven't
> > >> been doing copyright assignment for a while there's so much of the tree
> > >> that isn't actually under Gentoo Foundation copyright as far as I
> > >> understand it so should we just allow adding individual developers to
> > >> the headers along the Foundation? I will be adding a question about this
> > >> to the quizzes when we get some decision done so that new developers get
> > >> educated on this (probably also need to have this documented somewhere
> > >> on your web pages).
> > > 
> > > 
> > > This topic came up years ago. End solution was that ebuilds that go into
> > > the tree need to be assigned to the foundation. Reason for this is that
> > > if we ever have to go to court to protect any IP the author wont have to
> > > go to the courts with us to co-defend that IP. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > Ok so where can I point him for instructions on what papers to fill in
> > order to assign copyright or is just the header enough?
> 
> 
> I think the header is simply enough. 


Header should be enough, yes.

> Btw when this same topic was a hot item before it was when "amir" and
> drobbins were around. infact that sorta was the reason drobbins wanted
> to collect copyright assignments from devs. 
> 
> But if we do go with dual copyrighted materiel. Then he could probably
> add it on line #4 to avoid the repoman checks etc..
Regards,
Ferris
-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)