1 |
Kurt Lieber wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
>On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 08:26:30AM -0500 or thereabouts, Deedra Waters wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> |
6 |
>>If the current form isn't enforceable, then having people sign it doesn't really do us much good |
7 |
>> |
8 |
>> |
9 |
> |
10 |
>Regardless of whether or not it's enforceable, I think enough devs have |
11 |
>expressed concern about the things it purports to enforce. |
12 |
> |
13 |
>IMO, we should heed those concerns, stop requiring new devs to sign the doc |
14 |
>and figure out a way to get a better doc in place. |
15 |
> |
16 |
>--kurt |
17 |
> |
18 |
> |
19 |
Ok, so I was just talking to dmwaters on irc and she mentioned this part |
20 |
that I may have missed, that efforts were going on to redraft a new |
21 |
contract. I'd like to take this chance to voice my concern about this |
22 |
and suggest that we forego a contract of this nature (if we can even do |
23 |
it legally wrt <18, other countries, etc, etc) and treat copyright |
24 |
assignment just like any other devrel issue. Basically I suggest just |
25 |
saying that some inclusive list of files such as ebuilds, init scripts, |
26 |
gentoo specific scripts in cvs, what-have-you and treat it like a devrel |
27 |
issue if that doesn't happen. |
28 |
|
29 |
What I'm thinking is that we don't have a contract saying you won't do |
30 |
something malicious in an ebuild, and we don't need to. If something |
31 |
like that happened disciplinary action would be taken against the dev |
32 |
and I assume he/she would be dismissed. Why is the copyright assignment |
33 |
any different? If a developer doesn't assign the copyright we just say |
34 |
'hey, you can't do that, you can either change it or remove it and cease |
35 |
being a dev' |
36 |
|
37 |
A contract is superfluous and chances are it's unenforcable anyway, no |
38 |
other (?) GPL projects do this do they? Do other community based distros? |
39 |
|
40 |
|
41 |
Joshua Brindle |
42 |
|
43 |
-- |
44 |
gentoo-trustees@g.o mailing list |