| 1 |
On 11/23/18 3:25 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2018-11-23 3:23 p.m., Sarah White wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Either way: multiline copyright notices are legally valid, |
| 6 |
>> or is that meant to be disputed? I'm not clear on the |
| 7 |
>> intent for this comment: |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> ["...don't have to be listed in a notice"] |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> legal validity != legal requirement |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Sure. You're not wrong. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
You've left out the other section which starts: |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
["The interest in removing or discouraging..."] |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
What's the purpose of removing or discouraging |
| 23 |
something which doesn't harm gentoo, but rather, |
| 24 |
helps get more support from: ["contributors who |
| 25 |
are in a situation where a contract may require a |
| 26 |
copyright notice for anything done on-the-clock"] |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
... and/or other harmless reasons. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
The intent / reasoning for removal or prohibition |
| 31 |
of a multiline copyright notice has tenuous footing, |
| 32 |
and worries me that nobody in this thread has made |
| 33 |
a stronger argument than: ["we're not required by any |
| 34 |
law to allow a different copyright notice, so we'll |
| 35 |
require it to be a gentoo authors copyright notice."] |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- kuza |
Archives