Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-trustees
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-trustees: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o>
From: Daniel Ostrow <dostrow@g.o>
Subject: Re: joint copyright agreement
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:37:38 -0400
> This isn't the point. We aren't saying that they automated kernel
> building utility used by Gentoo is and can only be genkernel. We are
> saying that as long as genkernel is around we want to be able to make
> sure we have some control of its (and it's derivative works) usage and
> license. Anyone is free to come up with a bigger better badder
> portage/genkernel/whathaveyou (and we are free to use it) so long as it
> doesn't contain derivative works or if it does that it follows the
> letter of the appropriate license.

(I'm using genkernel as an example not because I have any articualr
feelings about it)

Oh and one other important distinction. As I forgot to address the
question of "Why should the genkernel developers need to sign this
agreement if some future wizbang genkernel replacement developed on
berlios infra doesn't have to?"

Well I'm not saying that the genkernel devs have to because genkernel is
central to what is Gentoo. I'm saying they have to because genkernel was
developed as a Gentoo project and is entirely hosted on Gentoo infra.
They should feel perfectly welcome to remove genkernel's official
project status. Heck I'd even be willing to let them keep their code on
Gentoo's infra (not that that would be our call in the slightest, that
would entirely be up to infra). But as long as it is a Gentoo project
the foundation has to be able to protect the project's interests.

That is something else that is being missed here. The purpose of this
document is to protect the interests of the authors of the code. There
is and has never been anything insidious about it. Also the wording of
the agreement doesn't allow us to do anything insidious. The worst that
we could do would be to pursue a legal action against a violator without
the consent of (or even against the will of) the original works author.
The problem there in is that copyright protection is an all or nothing
game. You don't protect it once and it is meaningless.

--Dan

-- 
gentoo-trustees@g.o mailing list


References:
joint copyright agreement
-- Corey Shields
Re: joint copyright agreement
-- Deedra Waters
Re: joint copyright agreement
-- Daniel Ostrow
Re: joint copyright agreement
-- Grant Goodyear
Re: joint copyright agreement
-- Daniel Ostrow
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-trustees: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: joint copyright agreement
Next by thread:
Re: joint copyright agreement
Previous by date:
Re: joint copyright agreement
Next by date:
[Fwd: Re: joint copyright agreement]


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-trustees mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.