| 1 |
It lets gentoo retain full ownership of things while letting the devs |
| 2 |
who write code etc own what they write. Call it a co-ownership so to |
| 3 |
speak. |
| 4 |
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 04:33:27 -0700 |
| 7 |
> From: Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@g.o> |
| 8 |
> To: gentoo-trustees@l.g.o |
| 9 |
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright stuff |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 14:58 -0700, Deedra Waters wrote: |
| 12 |
> > 1. We only worry about copyrighting code that gentoo actually owns, |
| 13 |
> > mainly catalyst, portage, the installer and things like that. |
| 14 |
> > Also any documentation that gentoo has written along with the utilities |
| 15 |
> > that may have been written for portage etc etc. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> That makes sense to me, since the vast majority of ebuilds aren't really |
| 18 |
> copyrightable anyway. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> > 2. it would be a co-ownership basically, meaning thatif i wrote |
| 21 |
> > documentation or parts of documentation, i would retain the rights to |
| 22 |
> > those docs, but gentoo owns the entire thing. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I don't understand this. Could you clarify? |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> > 3. only gentoo would have the ability to sue. This is more a legal |
| 27 |
> > thing, but basically it's so that if we ever had to go into law to |
| 28 |
> > defend the copyright, the other person can't force us to drag all of |
| 29 |
> > our developers into court. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> I'm a little confused about what exactly you're proposing. Is it an |
| 32 |
> exclusive license, assigning a share of the rights or something else |
| 33 |
> altogether? |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Thanks, |
| 36 |
> Donnie |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Deedra Waters - Gentoo developer relations, accessibility and infrastructure - |
| 41 |
dmwaters@g.o |
| 42 |
Gentoo linux: http://www.gentoo.org |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
gentoo-trustees@g.o mailing list |
Archives