List Archive: gentoo-trustees
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On Wednesday 30 June 2004 02:44, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Kurt Lieber wrote: [Tue Jun 29 2004, 02:13:16PM EDT]
> > * It claims ownership of developer hard drives "...or computer media
> > relating to the Work.")
> > * It says "Gentoo Technologies" instead of "Gentoo Foundation"
> > * It is completely unenforceable for any user (non-dev) that submits
> > something to bugzilla and/or firstname.lastname@example.org. (we're not
> > requiring them to sign this doc, so it's not enforceable)
> We just need some integration with bugzilla, and get rid of
> email@example.com. The integration with bugzilla should include
> a notice on the page when making an attachment that the submitter is
> assigning coprights over to Gentoo.
Alternatively we could have people agree when they create a bugzilla account
> I don't know how to do this otherwise. When somebody submits an
> ebuild, we can't have them getting upset at Gentoo and claiming we ran
> off with their stuff. Also we don't want them licensing ebuilds to
> us... we really want to own the copyright on stuff in th tree so that
> we have future rights.
Luckilly many contributions through bugzilla, simple patches or plain
derivations of skel.ebuild (just filling in the package specific sourcefile
and website) do not qualify for copyright at all due to their unoriginal
nature (at least in EU law).
> > * Because we allow the storage things like kernel patches, etc. for which
> > we do not own the copyright, in CVS (in the files/ directories), it
> > shows that we're selectively enforcing the copyright assignment. In the
> > past, this has often resulted in the entire document being tossed in
> > court.
> Gonna have to talk to a lawyer about that one.
We need to have a lawyer with an understanding of software have a look at it.
Daniel's lawyer had similar errors in the artwork licensing stuff.
> > * It is questionable whether or not we have any legal right to enforce
> > copyright claims for non-US devs. They're not US citizens, so it's not
> > clear if they're subject to US copyright restrictions/assignments.
> Well, that doesn't change the fact that we should attempt to get
> copyright assignment even from non-U.S. devs. *shrug*
In most cases we should be ok. The biggest issue is probably with underaged
developers who are not allowed to sign themselves. Law in general is
transparent in these issues. If there is a particular part that is not
possible in the laws of the developer's country only those parts are
disallowed. In EU law the only thing that can not be transferred is the right
to be recognized as the author. That should not be an issue in any case.
> > * We selectively enforce who must sign it.
> No comment.
> > * [minor] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright/index.xml needs
> > to be updated to remove Daniel from the text.
> I think Deedra had a good point. There's only so much we can do to
> make this thing foolproof without the help of a lawyer. Following the
> touch ups that we can make, that's probably the best route. (Raises
> the question: how do we *pay* lawyer fees?)
Maybe we could ask the FSF for advice.
Paul de Vrieze