1 |
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> Ühel kenal päeval, N, 27.10.2016 kell 07:21, kirjutas Rich Freeman: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> Actually, that isn't allowed, and was the very issue that kicked off |
5 |
>> the entire matter. You can't just take somebody else's code and |
6 |
>> change the copyright to "Gentoo project and contributors" if the |
7 |
>> Gentoo project's only contribution to the file is changing the |
8 |
>> copyright notice. From my reading on the topic you generally need to |
9 |
>> list the largest contributor on the copyright line, which may or may |
10 |
>> not be the Gentoo Foundation. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> "and contributors" covers that, and I didn't specify "Foundation". |
13 |
|
14 |
Well, legally there is no entity called the "Gentoo project." |
15 |
|
16 |
> The copyright headers purpose is: |
17 |
> |
18 |
> "Contrary to popular belief, providing a copyright notice or |
19 |
> registering the work with the USCO is not necessary to obtain basic |
20 |
> copyright protections. But there are some steps that can be taken to |
21 |
> enhance the creator's ability to sue or stop others from copying:" |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Place a copyright notice on a published work. (...) Placing this notice |
24 |
> on a published work (...) prevents others from claiming that they did |
25 |
> not know that the work was covered by copyright. This can be important |
26 |
> if the author is forced to file a lawsuit to enforce the copyright, |
27 |
> since it is much easier to recover significant money damages from a |
28 |
> deliberate (as opposed to innocent) copyright infringer." |
29 |
> |
30 |
> The copyright header has NO LEGAL meaning. IANAL. |
31 |
|
32 |
You do realize that the text you quoted isn't the entirety of the law |
33 |
concerning copyright. |
34 |
|
35 |
Changing a copyright notice could be construed as slander of title if |
36 |
the resulting statement isn't accurate. |
37 |
|
38 |
> |
39 |
> The copyright header has no meaning on who holds the copyright. |
40 |
|
41 |
Does writing "Copyright 2016 Richard Freeman" on a retail box of |
42 |
Microsoft Windows give me any copyright over Microsoft Windows? No. |
43 |
|
44 |
Is that statement making an incorrect factual statement as to who owns |
45 |
the copyright? Yes. Can you get in trouble for putting incorrect |
46 |
factual statements in print? Yes, depending on the circumstances. |
47 |
However, things like copyright ownership are the sorts of areas where |
48 |
people get touchy. |
49 |
|
50 |
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a lawyer with expertise on |
51 |
copyright who would say that we shouldn't have any concern about who |
52 |
we should name in our copyright notices. |
53 |
|
54 |
From what I've read the recommended practice is to list the largest |
55 |
contributor "and others." I don't think it is a good idea to simply |
56 |
copy the work of others and change the notice to "Gentoo and others" |
57 |
or something like that if Gentoo doesn't hold the copyrights on the |
58 |
majority. |
59 |
|
60 |
In any case, however, I'm not attempting to defend the status quo. I |
61 |
wouldn't have drafted the new proposal if I thought what we were doing |
62 |
today was adequate. I'm just concerned that dismissing the issue |
63 |
isn't the right solution either. |
64 |
|
65 |
-- |
66 |
Rich |