Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 08:48:03
Message-Id: 20070303084251.16a39120@snowdrop
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting by Daniel Robbins
1 On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 01:26:07 -0700 "Daniel Robbins"
2 <drobbins.daniel@×××××.com> wrote:
3 > On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org> wrote:
4 > > > But you appear to act as the project lead for PMS.
5 > >
6 > > No, I'm just the one who isn't yet sufficiently jaded by the whole
7 > > "people who don't know what PMS is jumping in and trying to derail
8 > > it" thing to have given up discussing it in public yet.
9 >
10 > Who is the project lead then?
12 spb.
14 > Also, you are at least a developer of PMS, if not the lead. If PMS is
15 > an official Gentoo project, then since when can official Gentoo
16 > projects have "non-dev" devs?
18 How many non-developers contribute to the tree? How many non-developers
19 have submitted patches for Portage or eselect?
21 > > I'd be interested to see where this policy is documented. The
22 > > licence requirements are in the social contract; what about
23 > > copyright? As far as I'm aware, copyright requirements are only
24 > > imposed upon the tree...
25 >
26 > The Foundation was created to hold the copyrights for all Gentoo
27 > source code and documentation, logos, etc. I assigned the copyright of
28 > all Gentoo source code and documentation to the Gentoo Foundation for
29 > this purpose. This purpose (among others) is documented at
30 >
32 But there's no requirement that copyright be assigned to the
33 Foundation, as far as I can see... At least, not for people who didn't
34 sign the draconian agreement that also meant that they had to hand over
35 all their hardware to the Foundation upon request...
37 > In the event of a copyright violation, the Foundation is able to hire
38 > a lawyer and act on behalf of all the copyright assignors. Without the
39 > assignment this is very difficult to do. If you would like to be able
40 > to have Gentoo enforce the terms of its licenses, then this is
41 > important. The FSF does the same thing. You know all this already. If
42 > you disagree with this approach, I certainly understand.
44 This is a myth perpetuated by the FSF for political reasons. There have
45 been plenty of successful defences (usually out of court) of projects
46 with huge numbers of copyright holders -- consider Linux, for example.
48 > > I'm also curious as to why people should be expected to assign
49 > > copyright to a group that is known for licence violations and
50 > > removing attribution from documents. How does this protect anything?
51 >
52 > Copyright assignment (first to Gentoo Technologies, Inc., then to
53 > Gentoo Foundation, Inc.) has *ALWAYS* been Gentoo policy.
55 Where is this documented? As far as I'm aware, there are two copyright
56 requirements:
58 * The "ebuilds in the tree" requirement, which is documented in various
59 places
61 * The "all developers must sign a legal assignment form" requirement,
62 which was scrapped long ago.
64 > 1) Any material created by Gentoo developers, as part of an official
65 > Gentoo Project, needs to have copyright assigned to the Gentoo
66 > Foundation, whether or not it is currently included in the Portage
67 > tree. This protects all of our collective contributions against
68 > misuse, which is why it is policy.
70 Where is this requirement documented?
72 > 2) Any material not assigned to the Gentoo Foundation cannot be
73 > considered an official Gentoo Project. It would not fall under the
74 > umbrella/scope of the development project that is Gentoo, which is in
75 > part a legal structure to protect our collective work, (code, logos,
76 > etc.) and would be considered a third-party project.
78 Where is this requirement documented? How do you account for the
79 official Gentoo projects that do not follow this requirement?
81 > I'd be really surprised - flabbergasted, really - if this has changed.
82 > But at this point I almost wouldn't be surprised. :)
84 Again, so far as I'm aware, the only non-tree copyright assignment that
85 was a requirement was for developers who signed the long-abolished
86 hideous legal document. If there are requirements to the contrary that
87 I've missed then I'd like to see them -- as the main copyright holder
88 for at least one official Gentoo project, this is something that is
89 extremely relevant to me.
91 --
92 Ciaran McCreesh
93 Mail : ciaranm at
94 Web :
95 Paludis, the secure package manager :


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting Daniel Robbins <drobbins.daniel@×××××.com>