All,

I'd like to try and keep things moving on this issue. So far, I've only
seen swift, corey, and dostrow's comments on this. Any other feedback on
this would be greatly appreciated. I'd like to see this done with by the
end of this year, and i think it's taken long enough.  So, my question
is, should we go with this? If so, how do we pitch this to the devs?
Reguardless of what we decide on, we're going to get oposision to this.


On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Corey Shields wrote:

> Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:08:16 -0700
> From: Corey Shields <cshields@g.o>
> To: gentoo-trustees@g.o
> Subject: [gentoo-trustees] joint copyright agreement
> 
>
> I don't have much time to explain this right this minute, but don't want to
> hold this back from trustees being able to read and ponder it.  This is the
> agreement 2 FAQs that were given to Kurt and I by our legal counsel last
> week, and we discussed this at length for a couple of hours.  We need to
> discuss if this is something we would like for our devs, and if so pitch it
> to them later with the help (in terms of QA on a mailing list) with our
> counsel.
>
> fyi, the agreement is a shortened, human-readable version of the actual
> legaleze agreement.  The agreement covers international issues in that in
> case the jurisdiction does not recognize such a dual copyright, the signer
> grants an irrevocable license to use the code, etc.
>
> the faq is 2-part:  one for the developer side and one for the trustee side.
> Brian put a lot of work into this, and I think covers a lot of bases.
>
> I'll send a note explaining more later (feel free to chime in, Kurt)..
>
> -C
>
>

-- 
Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure -
dmwaters@g.o
Gentoo linux: http://www.gentoo.org

-- 
gentoo-trustees@g.o mailing list