| 1 |
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 22:26 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 13:10 +0200, Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> I have a mostly user written ebuild in which he has put his copyright to |
| 5 |
> >> the header instead of the standard one so repoman is not happy about it. |
| 6 |
> >> What is the model we should follow these days? Since developers haven't |
| 7 |
> >> been doing copyright assignment for a while there's so much of the tree |
| 8 |
> >> that isn't actually under Gentoo Foundation copyright as far as I |
| 9 |
> >> understand it so should we just allow adding individual developers to |
| 10 |
> >> the headers along the Foundation? I will be adding a question about this |
| 11 |
> >> to the quizzes when we get some decision done so that new developers get |
| 12 |
> >> educated on this (probably also need to have this documented somewhere |
| 13 |
> >> on your web pages). |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > This topic came up years ago. End solution was that ebuilds that go into |
| 17 |
> > the tree need to be assigned to the foundation. Reason for this is that |
| 18 |
> > if we ever have to go to court to protect any IP the author wont have to |
| 19 |
> > go to the courts with us to co-defend that IP. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Ok so where can I point him for instructions on what papers to fill in |
| 24 |
> order to assign copyright or is just the header enough? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I think the header is simply enough. |
| 28 |
Btw when this same topic was a hot item before it was when "amir" and |
| 29 |
drobbins were around. infact that sorta was the reason drobbins wanted |
| 30 |
to collect copyright assignments from devs. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
But if we do go with dual copyrighted materiel. Then he could probably |
| 33 |
add it on line #4 to avoid the repoman checks etc.. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
| 37 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives