On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 09:56, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Thursday 01 July 2004 15:40, Corey Shields wrote:
> > On Thursday 01 July 2004 08:37 am, Kurt Lieber wrote:
> > > Regardless of whether or not it's enforceable, I think enough devs
> > > have expressed concern about the things it purports to enforce.
> > >
> > > IMO, we should heed those concerns, stop requiring new devs to sign
> > > the doc and figure out a way to get a better doc in place.
> >
> > There is really no reason to continue signing copyright over to Gentoo
> > Technologies, so until this all changes to the new Foundation, I have
> > to agree with putting these on hold, with the agreement that they will
> > be signing one later.
> 
> Appart from the fact that enough people (including trustees (myself 
> included)) have not actually signed the statement, the statement is 
> indeed broken so I agree on postponing it. Also we might not need the 
> whole copyright. The only thing we want to be able to do is to fight 
> battles in court without having to make many many party in the battle.
> 
> Paul

Agreed.

Like I said on -core, I am willing to talk to the FSF/EFF and see if we
can get some pro-bono legal advice. Are there any objections to me doing
this immediately?

Cheers,
-- 
John Davis
Gentoo Linux Developer
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~zhen>

----
GnuPG Public Key: <http://dev.gentoo.org/~zhen/zhen_pub.asc>
Fingerprint: 4F9E 41F6 D072 5C1A 636C  2D46 B92C 4823 E281 41BB