Re: [gentoo-dev] Ebuild info: author, maintainer and copyrights

[Vitaly Kushneriuk]

mbutcher wrote:
> I'm not completely opposed to assigning Gentoo my copyright, but I can't see
> any reason, from either my or your perspective, why I should _have_ to do
> that.
Same here.

drobbins: 
> > No, chouser was right.  I'm getting a bit worried by this trend of
> > Junior Gentoo Linux developers "explaining" Gentoo Linux policy when
> > they have no idea what said policy is.

This was _not_ my attempt to explain Gentoo policy, but rather my
personal opinion on the subject. I'd say exactly the same if I was not
a part of the Gentoo team. This is just my view of the ways of
open-source. Personaly I will _not_ contribute to a project that one day
can go closed-source(or public domain, which is the same ;). 
And this is what distributed copyright prevents very good.
And if you'll check headers of ebuilds that I made, you'll seee
(c) vitaly@g.o ;)

> > All ebuilds should be Copyrighted by Gentoo Technologies, Inc. or should
> > generally not be put on Portage.

It sounds, _at least_ suspicious.

> > We may need to change the license in
> > the future, from:
> >
> > # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, v2 or
> > later
> >
> > To:
> >
> > # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, v2 only
you can change it right now in skel.ebuilds so that future contributions
will have it _by_default_. Still if author wants to change it, he's in
his right to do so.
Again, check my ebuilds, you'll see GPL v2. No "or later". I just do not
trust RMS. Why should I trust Gentoo?
> >
> > Particularly if something weird gets added to a new version of the GPL.
> > If we have multiple copyright holders, doing this becomes a mess.
If you that concerned (and you should imo) why did you release it with
"or later" stuff in the first place? And why don't you change it now?
GPL is out there for long time, and v2. should be enough.


Regards,
	/Vitaly.