| 1 |
Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 2 |
> Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 3 |
>> While I think this would be an excellent move, there are a few topics |
| 4 |
>> that concern me a bit: |
| 5 |
>> 1) just to be sure, did someone check the transfer agreement between the |
| 6 |
>> Foundation and the old Gentoo, Inc for potential problems? |
| 7 |
>> 2) what would this mean for our copyright situation? In detail: |
| 8 |
>> a) who would (legally) own the copyright? |
| 9 |
>> b) what would (in theory) be involved if we'd want to enforce/change |
| 10 |
>> the license? |
| 11 |
>> c) if the copyright were owned by the Conservancy, would we have to |
| 12 |
>> change our copyright headers (in existing and/or new files)? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> It might be worth noting that it appears that Gentoo would be the first |
| 15 |
> distribution to join. I'd be interested in knowing if the SFC considers |
| 16 |
> distributing closed-source or proprietary software (nero, ati/nvidia |
| 17 |
> drivers, vmware) to be "producing non-free software (as per the |
| 18 |
> Conservancy's charitable purpose)" as mentioned in section 2(b) of their |
| 19 |
> notes. Paragraph 2(a) seems to prohibit it. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
>> a. The Project Will Be Free Software. The Conservancy and the Project agree that |
| 22 |
>> any software distributed by the Project will be distributed solely as Free Software. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> If that's not a problem I think this is a great idea. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
We don't "distribute" those, do we? A look at their ebuilds shows that |
| 27 |
those are just downloaded from upstream, not from Gentoo mirrors. Well, |
| 28 |
except for Nero. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
At least we aren't the creators of it! |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Does that document you mention define what "Free Software" is? nvidia |
| 33 |
drivers are free to download, install, use, in the sense that they don't |
| 34 |
cost anything. Bah, legal hassle! |
Archives