1 |
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:06:50AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> COPYRIGHT |
3 |
> |
4 |
> I think this issue is best dealt with on the side - it has no bearing |
5 |
> on any of the really contentious points here. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> I note that the owners of the copyright on udev have announced to the |
8 |
> world that (emphasis mine): |
9 |
> You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or ANY PORTION OF |
10 |
> IT, thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and distribute |
11 |
> such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, |
12 |
> provided that you also meet all of these conditions... |
13 |
> |
14 |
> None of those conditions included keeping the copyright line intact. |
15 |
|
16 |
True, but removing a copyright line doesn't change the real copyright of |
17 |
a file, although it is generally considered something that you really |
18 |
should not do at all (see your local copyright laws/rules for details.) |
19 |
|
20 |
> Anybody can therefore alter the copyright line as they wish, as they |
21 |
> have been given explicit permission to do so. They need only comply |
22 |
> with the other terms in the LGPL to do so (the most important being |
23 |
> licensing it under the LGPL and making the source available. |
24 |
|
25 |
Heh, wait, no, you can not do that. You can not modify a copyright line |
26 |
to add your own, without first doing one of the two things I discussed |
27 |
in the beginning. Otherwise, don't you think that all of those big |
28 |
companies that are using Linux and other open source projects would have |
29 |
done something like this already? |
30 |
|
31 |
> In fact, (L)GPL v3 has an optional attribution clause, and the fact |
32 |
> that they made this explicit is because some projects might not want |
33 |
> to give out this authorization. |
34 |
|
35 |
Changing the lines in the comment block in the code files is not what |
36 |
attribution clauses are about at all. |
37 |
|
38 |
I could go into details about copyright, and how it works, and how you |
39 |
need to treat it if you are a programmer, but I'm not a lawyer, and the |
40 |
rules are different in different countries and even states. |
41 |
|
42 |
I have, however, worked with a very large number of lawyers, and |
43 |
companies, and have the basics down, and none of what you say above is |
44 |
really allowed at all, sorry. |
45 |
|
46 |
Also note, if you just remove code from a file, you don't get copyright |
47 |
of the file, which is a fun thing to think about if you are trying to |
48 |
remove features from a product, or doing 'git revert' of specific |
49 |
patchsets. |
50 |
|
51 |
> So, if you want an official ruling from the trustees we would need to |
52 |
> meet/vote on it and perhaps discuss with counsel, but my thinking is |
53 |
> that anybody distributing work under the (L)GPL has waived their right |
54 |
> to be named on the copyright line of any copies distributed by others, |
55 |
|
56 |
Again, no, this is flat out not right. Please discuss with counsel if |
57 |
you disagree and they can go into the details. |
58 |
|
59 |
> and as far as I can tell I have found nothing to the contrary from any |
60 |
> authoritative source. |
61 |
|
62 |
Talk to a copyright lawyer please. I'm sure there is one that the |
63 |
Foundation uses, right? |
64 |
|
65 |
> Again, that's my two cents and not a license for anybody to do |
66 |
> anything. This topic did come up recently with regard to accepting |
67 |
> some other kind of outside work into Gentoo, and as I recall there was |
68 |
> some debate over whether the copyright notices could be changed. I'd |
69 |
> have to dig up the details - I think the issue might have been mooted |
70 |
> before any kind of formal decision was reached... |
71 |
|
72 |
I think this is something that the Foundation's counsel better get set |
73 |
up properly, as it really is a big deal, and can come back to cause big |
74 |
problems if done wrong. I say this as someone who has been part of |
75 |
lawsuits dealing with this type of thing, and as someone who has worked |
76 |
with lawyers on copyright issues for open source projects for a very |
77 |
long time[1]. |
78 |
|
79 |
But as always, talk to a lawyer, I suggest that the Foundation do this |
80 |
to set up the proper guidelines and rules that all Gentoo developers |
81 |
need to follow. That will clear all of this confusion up properly. |
82 |
|
83 |
thanks, |
84 |
|
85 |
greg k-h |
86 |
|
87 |
[1] I've worked with them so much, that I'm a "continuing education" |
88 |
credit for lawyers in the USA when I give one of my various talks |
89 |
about how open source projects are developed, and how the copyright |
90 |
and license issues work within them. |