| 1 |
On Wednesday 01 September 2004 10:34, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> As for the draft.. the wording of the "Gentoo" definition looks a bit |
| 3 |
> shaky to me. It could be taken to lay claim to /all/ the "intellectual |
| 4 |
> property" produced by Gentoo developers in the two given areas. I'm |
| 5 |
> sure many are familiar with existing corporate practice to this effect. |
| 6 |
> Thus, an additional clause "as they may choose to contribute it to the |
| 7 |
> Gentoo and larger open source community" might be in order. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Gentoo is the collection of: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> * free knowledge such as documentation and metadata about |
| 12 |
> concepts/domains relevant to operating systems and their components, |
| 13 |
> created by Gentoo developers "as they may choose to contribute it to |
| 14 |
> the Gentoo and larger open source community" |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> * free software developed by Gentoo Developers "as they may choose to |
| 17 |
> contribute that too, to the Gentoo and larger open source |
| 18 |
> community" |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> ... or something to that effect, anyway... the idea being that they may |
| 21 |
> have OTHER projects they are involved with, particularly as the |
| 22 |
> developers are volunteers and would be /expected/ to have other jobs |
| 23 |
> and commitments, and Gentoo isn't going to demand that all THAT work |
| 24 |
> ALSO be made available to Gentoo. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I agree with you that the wording is not good. I don't think there was |
| 27 |
ever the intention to be that "broad". Also this is not supposed to be a |
| 28 |
legal document, more a guideline that clarifies what we see as gentoo, |
| 29 |
and what does not belong in gentoo anymore. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Paul |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 35 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 36 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 37 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives