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