| 1 |
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 11:42:11AM -0400, Jon Portnoy wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 08:27:15AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Fri, 2004-10-08 at 07:04, Jon Portnoy wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright explains all of this. |
| 5 |
> > > |
| 6 |
> > > Assigning copyright to Gentoo is quite necessary and will not be |
| 7 |
> > > changed. This has all been discussed to death back when it was |
| 8 |
> > > implemented. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > The question still remains for patches. We can't assign other people's |
| 11 |
> > copyrights for them, so we (apparently) can't keep their patches in CVS, |
| 12 |
> > so there end up being a bunch of different repositories all over the |
| 13 |
> > place to maintain Gentoo packages. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Hmm. I thought when we discussed this previously the conclusion was that |
| 17 |
> since we don't own copyright, we can't reassign copyright, and therefore |
| 18 |
> it's a moot point and we can keep it in the tree anyway. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
No, the conclusion was that the patches can not be in the tree. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
That is why I ripped the 2.6 kernel patches out of the cvs tree, and |
| 23 |
moved them to an external bitkeeper tree. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
greg k-h |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives