| 1 |
IMNAL, but the "standard reason" for SOLE ownership, or ("dual, but not |
| 2 |
shared copyright") is to enable legal pursuit of license violators. The |
| 3 |
interesting side effect is that a copyright owner can license |
| 4 |
distribution, or other rights, under additional licenses. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 20:35, Luke-Jr wrote: |
| 8 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 9 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I must have read the thread incorrectly at some point, then. I thought the |
| 12 |
> purpose of Gentoo (co-)owning the copyright was the prevent the creator from |
| 13 |
> making it proprietary. What exactly does it achive to have Gentoo (co-)own |
| 14 |
> copyrights on them? I have no objection to the idea, but I see no actual |
| 15 |
> *reason* why it should be required... |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> On Thursday 21 August 2003 06:00 pm, Jon Portnoy wrote: |
| 18 |
> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 01:49:25PM +0000, Luke-Jr wrote: |
| 19 |
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 20 |
> > > Hash: SHA1 |
| 21 |
> > > |
| 22 |
> > > Even if the owner were to change the license, they could not change it on |
| 23 |
> > > ebuilds already released under the GPL. |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> > I'm aware, thank you. I don't need to have the basics of copyright law |
| 26 |
> > explained to me. |
| 27 |
> - -- |
| 28 |
> Luke-Jr |
| 29 |
> Developer, Gentoo Linux |
| 30 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/ |
| 31 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 32 |
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> iD8DBQE/RWVHZl/BHdU+lYMRApjkAJ9CBki4BH5q3wABFpoNN5fxe3C+rQCcDP9k |
| 35 |
> hScPDIpYKARrj7oGU74ck8s= |
| 36 |
> =FlRV |
| 37 |
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> -- |
| 41 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
Lloyd D Budd <lloyd@×××××××××××.com> |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives