| 1 |
On Thursday 21 August 2003 01:48 pm, Chris Bainbridge wrote: |
| 2 |
<snip> |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > The GPL already states that. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> That is incorrect. See for example the Sistina GFS fiasco. GFS was a GPL |
| 7 |
> product which had contributor copyrights assigned to Sistina. Then they |
| 8 |
> decided to go closed source, taking all the user contributions with them. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
The original code (from before they closed the source) is still available |
| 11 |
GPL'ed, even from Sistina's own ftp server. The code was taken up by an |
| 12 |
opensource project, and lives on in the form of OpenGFS. Besides there is a |
| 13 |
big difference betweeen Sistina and Gentoo. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
--Brian Jackson |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> > > I am unclear how copyright assignment is being done at the moment? I |
| 19 |
> > > have never been asked to assign copyright for any contributed ebuilds, |
| 20 |
> > > and I have never signed a contract with GTI, as far as I am concerned I |
| 21 |
> > > still have copyright on those GPL ebuilds. |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > Only if you changed the copyright header to mention your name rather |
| 24 |
> > than Gentoo Technologies. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Hmmm, I thought that copyright notice only applied to the header ;-) |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> -- |
| 30 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives