1 |
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:05:07AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
2 |
> On 11 Dec 2015 14:16, Patrick McLean wrote: |
3 |
> > On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 15:37:48 -0600 William Hubbs wrote: |
4 |
> > > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 09:04:47PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
5 |
> > > > >>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2015, William Hubbs wrote: |
6 |
> > > > |
7 |
> > > Well, the OpenRC project is currently inconsistent about this, so the |
8 |
> > > intention is to make it consistent. |
9 |
> > > |
10 |
> > > The .c/.h files have file-scope licenses, but that isn't true for |
11 |
> > > everything in the project. |
12 |
> > > |
13 |
> > > I am willing to make the effort to do this, I was just wondering if |
14 |
> > > there are any legal pitfalls I need to worry about. |
15 |
> > > |
16 |
> > > My theory is I can probably use git to find out who all of the authors |
17 |
> > > are, and generate an Authors list from that information and from |
18 |
> > > looking at copyright notices. |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > One concern about this is the possibility of copied code. If OpenRC |
21 |
> > ever copied code from other BSD licensed projects, then dropping the |
22 |
> > notice from the top of the file would be a violation of the upstream |
23 |
> > license. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> OpenRC isn't purely Gentoo copyright, so it's already a violation. |
26 |
> the majority of entries belong to Roy. |
27 |
|
28 |
I have no idea what you mean by "it's already a violation", and I'm not |
29 |
sure what Gentoo Copyright has to do with it. |
30 |
|
31 |
Altering Copyright statements to try to claim Gentoo copyright would |
32 |
definitely be a violation, but that's not what I'm wanting to do. |
33 |
|
34 |
My goal is to centralize the Copyright and license information we |
35 |
already have, as much as possible [1]. This site seems to imply that |
36 |
moving Copyright/Author information around is legal. |
37 |
|
38 |
William |
39 |
|
40 |
[1] https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2012/ManagingCopyrightInformation.html |