| 1 |
Ühel kenal päeval, E, 24.10.2016 kell 19:07, kirjutas Rich Freeman: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o> |
| 3 |
> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > In order to contribute to GNU projects, one must sign a copyright |
| 6 |
> > assignment statement. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Gentoo doesn't have anything similar as far as I'm aware, which |
| 9 |
> > makes |
| 10 |
> > me question the legitimacy of "Gentoo Foundation" copyrights. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > What is the story? |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> The story of what? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Are you asking whether they're legally binding? You'd have to sue |
| 18 |
> somebody to find out, because as far as I'm aware the matter is |
| 19 |
> untested in court. I think you could make an argument that |
| 20 |
> voluntarily placing that header on your work is an assignment of |
| 21 |
> copyright. You could also argue otherwise. A court would decide who |
| 22 |
> wins. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Personally I'd rather move to an explicit system. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Why do we care about an explicit copyright system at all? |
| 27 |
The copyright holder having licensed the work under our GPL-2 license |
| 28 |
or a license that allows to re-license to GPL-2 is what matter to us. |
| 29 |
That should be explicit, not chasing some explicit copyright headers |
| 30 |
and whatnot specifically. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Projects that want explicit copyright or copyright assignments or CLAs |
| 33 |
are those that want to be able to re-license the code without getting |
| 34 |
permissions from everyone (some of whom might not be possible to |
| 35 |
contact at a future date) or be able to sue someone for license |
| 36 |
violations without the original developers of the affected parts having |
| 37 |
to be involved. Are we pursuing those option, or why do we care? |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Having all copyrightable work explicitly licensed or possible to re- |
| 40 |
license to our chosen license is what matter. We don't need bogus or |
| 41 |
non-bogus copyright headers, just a "Gentoo project and contributors" |
| 42 |
copyright notice or optionally allowing explicit ones to those that |
| 43 |
want it, together with a license notice. That's so that people looking |
| 44 |
at some file know what license it is, etc, and not run off copying it |
| 45 |
into their incompatible license stuff or whatever. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
And yes, the headers are currently completely bogus. You can consider |
| 48 |
it to be as such to any file I have contributed copyrightable work to, |
| 49 |
and the Gentoo Foundation does not have copyright to such work of mine. |
| 50 |
It may however use it under the terms of the GPL-2 license. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
IANAL, |
| 54 |
Mart |
Archives