| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Kumba wrote: |
| 5 |
> Call me the anarchist of the pack, but what are other organizations |
| 6 |
> doing, like *BSD, debian, or even other open-sourced projects as far as |
| 7 |
> copyrights go? Why not just keep it simple and adopt the mechanism used |
| 8 |
> by the upstream linux kernel team (which based on gregkh's description, |
| 9 |
> seems to fit us the best, imho). |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The reason I suggested this dual solution is that this is how the FSF |
| 12 |
does it, although I'm not saying it's perfect. And while it is a bit |
| 13 |
more maintenance, it seems like it offers the most benefits for both |
| 14 |
sides. The foundation gets to protect everything that people are willing |
| 15 |
to give it, and people who are unwilling to assign the copyright bear |
| 16 |
the brunt of any infringements personally. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> As it currently stands, it seems every idea proposed so far has a flaw |
| 19 |
> or flaw(s) that prohibits, limits, excludes, or annoys one or more of |
| 20 |
> our devs. Surely this situtation, or a variant, has been tackled before, |
| 21 |
> so I'm sure somewhere out there, there is something workable for us |
| 22 |
> (possibly with minor modifications). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
What's the flaw with this, again? I must've missed it. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Thanks, |
| 27 |
Donnie |
| 28 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 29 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
iD8DBQFCwMOBXVaO67S1rtsRAu4DAJ0XtGbI15dI17JazPwEuwx2gqO4owCdGPGN |
| 32 |
MLsWXJT0aUGncLxzLZFqxRI= |
| 33 |
=S9cF |
| 34 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-trustees@g.o mailing list |
Archives