1 |
On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 12:46, mbutcher wrote: |
2 |
> First of all, in the past, it _has_ been recommended that the copyright be |
3 |
> ratained by the person who wrote the ebuild (It came up in January... can't |
4 |
> remember what the thread title was). "Junior" contributors are likely just |
5 |
> repeating what they were told were the accepted policies. |
6 |
> But I'm curious to know why the copyright has to be assigned to Gentoo |
7 |
> Technologies. My experience with many open source projects has been that the |
8 |
> person who wrote the code retains the copyright. I don't see a compellig |
9 |
> reason to give up the copyright. Why should we? |
10 |
|
11 |
I guess that there is no real reason to give up the Copyright. It's one |
12 |
of those situations where we've "done it that way" since the inception |
13 |
of the project, so it's our policy by default until changed. It does |
14 |
allow me to tweak the GPL part of the license to be "v2 only", which has |
15 |
been something that I've been meaning to do for a while since I like the |
16 |
GPL but don't automatically trust future GPL licenses. Since ebuilds |
17 |
used to be created by a tight-knit team, this used to be a non-issue. |
18 |
Now many people are contributing ebuilds, so it looks like we should |
19 |
change our policy. It looks like we've gotten to the point where we |
20 |
need a Debian-style "Social Contract" and all the trappings that come |
21 |
along with that. Growing pains. |
22 |
|
23 |
My concern is that when someone with a "@gentoo.org" address posts |
24 |
something to this list, many people read the email as if it is our |
25 |
official policy when it isn't, particularly if statements are presented |
26 |
as fact. All our developers have been keeping the ebuilds we work on |
27 |
"Copyright Gentoo Technologies Inc." since the beginning, and nearly all |
28 |
ebuilds have been submitted this way. This policy hasn't changed. |
29 |
Maybe it should, but it hasn't yet. If things like this need to be |
30 |
addressed, I would appreciate it if our "@gentoo.org" developers would |
31 |
take the time to discuss the issue with me first before posting it |
32 |
here. Some of our developers do this, others don't. I just don't want |
33 |
misinformation to be spread. I'm a busy guy too, and sometimes we don't |
34 |
have an official policy on something because I haven't actually sat down |
35 |
and had time to think about it and discuss it with others yet. Not all |
36 |
of us stay up nights to think about copyright issues. This doesn't |
37 |
necessarily mean that we have malevolent intentions. |
38 |
|
39 |
> On the other hand, I see Vitaly's second point to be valid. I am sceptical |
40 |
> about giving up copyright on anything I've done, as it means giving up any |
41 |
> semblence of ownership, control, or future rights to that item. I mean, you |
42 |
> can use it under GPL all you want, but what if I want to use portions of the |
43 |
> code I wrote to include it in proprietary projects that I do under the |
44 |
> auspices of my employer. Now I have to ask _you_ permission to reuse _my_ |
45 |
> code. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> I'm not completely opposed to assigning Gentoo my copyright, but I can't see |
48 |
> any reason, from either my or your perspective, why I should _have_ to do |
49 |
> that. |
50 |
|
51 |
Karltk on irc suggested that we: |
52 |
|
53 |
1) Require all ebuilds submitted to us to be released under the GPL |
54 |
2) State that any ebuilds without a Copyright line will be assigned to |
55 |
Gentoo Technologies, Inc. |
56 |
3) Allow contributors to keep their copyright on the ebuilds they submit |
57 |
|
58 |
We then need to figure out how to address the issue of contributed |
59 |
ebuilds being derivatives of existing ebuilds that are Copyright someone |
60 |
else! Must we list all the copyright holders at the top of every |
61 |
ebuild? It gets confusing (to me at least). |
62 |
|
63 |
Obviously, we need to add something like this to gentoo.org, along with |
64 |
a revised version of the Debian Social Contract. But as of right now, |
65 |
any new policy regarding Copyright hasn't been finalized yet. I'm still |
66 |
learning about it and it's still being discussed. |
67 |
|
68 |
I guess these issues are a 'good thing' and a result that Gentoo Linux |
69 |
and the developer/user community is growing and maturing. |
70 |
|
71 |
Best Regards, |
72 |
|
73 |
-- |
74 |
Daniel Robbins <drobbins@g.o> |
75 |
Chief Architect/President http://www.gentoo.org |
76 |
Gentoo Technologies, Inc. |