1 |
Hi Daniel, |
2 |
|
3 |
> > I'm also curious as to why people should be expected to assign |
4 |
> > copyright to a group that is known for licence violations and |
5 |
> > removing attribution from documents. How does this protect |
6 |
> > anything? |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Copyright assignment (first to Gentoo Technologies, Inc., then to |
9 |
> Gentoo Foundation, Inc.) has *ALWAYS* been Gentoo policy. |
10 |
Not quit true, it *had* been policy: |
11 |
|
12 |
1) Since the copyright agreement has been taken back by the foundation |
13 |
several gentoo devs joined who never agreed on assigning copyright of |
14 |
their work to the foundation. |
15 |
|
16 |
2) There are countries who acutally adhere to the Berne Convention |
17 |
(1886). This means even the deed of commiting sources with a "Copyright |
18 |
(C) XXXX Gentoo Foundation" is useless in most countries of the EU. |
19 |
E.g, *none* of the stuff that I ever commited to Gentoo's repositories |
20 |
is copyrighted (solely) by the Gentoo Foundation, due to me being |
21 |
German citizen and writing that stuff in Germany. FYI, there isn't even |
22 |
something like Copyright in Germany. We have an "Author's right" which |
23 |
agree with the Berne Convention and deviates from copyright in several |
24 |
points. |
25 |
|
26 |
> 1) Any material created by Gentoo developers, as part of an official |
27 |
> Gentoo Project, needs to have copyright assigned to the Gentoo |
28 |
> Foundation, whether or not it is currently included in the Portage |
29 |
> tree. This protects all of our collective contributions against |
30 |
> misuse, which is why it is policy. |
31 |
As I pointed out above, that's useless. See the Berne Convention and |
32 |
keep in mind that only half of the (active) developers come from the |
33 |
US. |
34 |
|
35 |
> 2) Any material not assigned to the Gentoo Foundation cannot be |
36 |
> considered an official Gentoo Project. It would not fall under the |
37 |
FUD. Honestly, Gentoo as a project should not care if it is copyrighted |
38 |
to the Foundation. The *Foundation* should strive to work with the |
39 |
Authors on a mutually acceptable way of copyrighting it. |
40 |
> umbrella/scope of the development project that is Gentoo, which is in |
41 |
> part a legal structure to protect our collective work, (code, logos, |
42 |
> etc.) and would be considered a third-party project. |
43 |
> |
44 |
> I'd be really surprised - flabbergasted, really - if this has |
45 |
> changed. But at this point I almost wouldn't be surprised. :) |
46 |
Suprise! :-) |
47 |
|
48 |
Danny |
49 |
-- |
50 |
Danny van Dyk <kugelfang@g.o> |
51 |
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project |
52 |
-- |
53 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |