List Archive: gentoo-trustees
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
Daniel Ostrow wrote: [Tue Sep 20 2005, 09:26:14AM CDT]
> The part that I am missing is what would be the downside. I have yet to
> hear anything other then "I feel icky about assigning my copyright to
> someone else." What is it that makes you feel icky? What do you fear
> could happen under such circumstances? Once we have a clear cut
> understanding on that the wording of the document can be changed to
> allay those fears. Again there is nothing insidious about this
> document...it can do people no harm.
I think the arguments so far have been reasonably good. The reason I
brought up the linux kernel, though, is because it should also suffer
from all of the issues that you've raised, and yet the kernel folks
don't seem to think it's a problem, and I don't understand why. In that
case it has been the individual copyright holders who have initiated lawsuits,
and one could argue that the Gentoo Foundation could fascilitate such
suits on behalf of the original copyright holders. (Again, I'm looking
for good counter-arguments here. For the most part, this stuff gives me
a nasty headache.)
As for what the downside would be, I don't really know, but I'm sure
that there are devs who will object. Perhaps they have some quite valid
downsides that we haven't considered. There's only 13 of us, after all.
Once again, I'd like to urge that we move this discussion to a more
public forum as soon as we can. I agree that there's nothing insidious
here, but if we try to present a fait accompli then we're going to
create something that appears insidious to many, regardless of whether
or not it actually is.
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76