1 |
If you look at the previous copyright thread on core however, certain |
2 |
countries will not let you sign over copyrights namely germany and italy |
3 |
are the 2 that i remember. |
4 |
|
5 |
I agree that gentoo should be able to protect it's software. but how. |
6 |
The license might be 1 way to go, agreed. |
7 |
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Sven Vermeulen wrote: |
8 |
|
9 |
> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:17:59 +0200 |
10 |
> From: Sven Vermeulen <swift@g.o> |
11 |
> To: gentoo-trustees@l.g.o |
12 |
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff |
13 |
> |
14 |
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 12:37:26PM -0700, Deedra Waters wrote: |
15 |
> > I want to start this out as a small discussion to start with and take it |
16 |
> > to core once i get a general idea of how people feel. |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> > What i want to know from you all is do we really want to have/deal with |
19 |
> > the copyright stuff? |
20 |
> > |
21 |
> > My feeling is that while copyrights are/can be a good thing, i'm |
22 |
> > starting to think that with the major differences that's in our |
23 |
> > developer base, that we're not going to get a complete copyright doc |
24 |
> > that everyone can and will be able to handle. Some countries can't sign |
25 |
> > over copyrights, while we have devs that are under the legal age to sign |
26 |
> > documents. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> True about the age, but not true about not being able to transfer |
29 |
> copyrights. We are talking about transferrable rights here, not moral |
30 |
> rights. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> I still feel that a copyright assignment is the best option if we can not |
33 |
> have the copyright available for both parties (i.e. both the developer /and/ |
34 |
> the foundation can take action against copyright violations). Having dual |
35 |
> copyrights is more troublesome than full copyright assignment, since full |
36 |
> copyright assignment is probably listed in all relevant laws (Copyright Act |
37 |
> in the USA, Auteursrecht in Belgium, etc.) while dual copyright is more |
38 |
> something exotic. |
39 |
> |
40 |
> Another possibility is an exclusive license. With an exclusive license, the |
41 |
> Foundation can protect the code (take appropriate measures, ...) while the |
42 |
> original author still retains the copyright. The drawback is that the |
43 |
> original author can not use the code beyond what the Foundation and the |
44 |
> contract (= the license) sais ("exclusive" license). |
45 |
> |
46 |
> But, back to the why's: I do feel that we need to have this protection. |
47 |
> With the copyright (or exclusive license) in the Foundation's hands, |
48 |
> Gentoo's code is completely contained within the project. We are then able |
49 |
> to protect ourselves in case of copyright violations. |
50 |
> |
51 |
> Unless I am mistaken, copyright violations are the only reason why we would |
52 |
> want copyright assignment (it is not the Foundation's intention to change |
53 |
> license; as a matter of fact, we explicitly made clear that we will never |
54 |
> change license). Yet copyright violations are a big issue. |
55 |
> |
56 |
> One frequent violation is removing the creditation given on the code (or |
57 |
> documentation). That may seem small, but for a free software/documentation |
58 |
> contribution, it is very important to the contributor. What good is the |
59 |
> code/documentation to the contributor if no-one knows he did it? |
60 |
> |
61 |
> Other violations are for instance modifications without making the changes |
62 |
> open (case of GPL), using the code/documentation as part of a different, |
63 |
> non-free work, etc. |
64 |
> |
65 |
> Wkr, |
66 |
> Sven Vermeulen |
67 |
> |
68 |
> |
69 |
|
70 |
-- |
71 |
Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure - |
72 |
dmwaters@g.o |
73 |
Gentoo linux: http://www.gentoo.org |
74 |
|
75 |
-- |
76 |
gentoo-trustees@g.o mailing list |