| 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 |
Archives