If you look at the previous copyright thread on core however, certain
countries will not let you sign over copyrights namely germany and italy
are the 2 that i remember.
I agree that gentoo should be able to protect it's software. but how.
The license might be 1 way to go, agreed.
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 22:17:59 +0200
> From: Sven Vermeulen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 12:37:26PM -0700, Deedra Waters wrote:
> > I want to start this out as a small discussion to start with and take it
> > to core once i get a general idea of how people feel.
> > What i want to know from you all is do we really want to have/deal with
> > the copyright stuff?
> > My feeling is that while copyrights are/can be a good thing, i'm
> > starting to think that with the major differences that's in our
> > developer base, that we're not going to get a complete copyright doc
> > that everyone can and will be able to handle. Some countries can't sign
> > over copyrights, while we have devs that are under the legal age to sign
> > documents.
> True about the age, but not true about not being able to transfer
> copyrights. We are talking about transferrable rights here, not moral
> I still feel that a copyright assignment is the best option if we can not
> have the copyright available for both parties (i.e. both the developer /and/
> the foundation can take action against copyright violations). Having dual
> copyrights is more troublesome than full copyright assignment, since full
> copyright assignment is probably listed in all relevant laws (Copyright Act
> in the USA, Auteursrecht in Belgium, etc.) while dual copyright is more
> something exotic.
> Another possibility is an exclusive license. With an exclusive license, the
> Foundation can protect the code (take appropriate measures, ...) while the
> original author still retains the copyright. The drawback is that the
> original author can not use the code beyond what the Foundation and the
> contract (= the license) sais ("exclusive" license).
> But, back to the why's: I do feel that we need to have this protection.
> With the copyright (or exclusive license) in the Foundation's hands,
> Gentoo's code is completely contained within the project. We are then able
> to protect ourselves in case of copyright violations.
> Unless I am mistaken, copyright violations are the only reason why we would
> want copyright assignment (it is not the Foundation's intention to change
> license; as a matter of fact, we explicitly made clear that we will never
> change license). Yet copyright violations are a big issue.
> One frequent violation is removing the creditation given on the code (or
> documentation). That may seem small, but for a free software/documentation
> contribution, it is very important to the contributor. What good is the
> code/documentation to the contributor if no-one knows he did it?
> Other violations are for instance modifications without making the changes
> open (case of GPL), using the code/documentation as part of a different,
> non-free work, etc.
> Sven Vermeulen
Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure -
Gentoo linux: http://www.gentoo.org
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list