1 |
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 22:11:36 +0100 |
2 |
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:06:05 -0400 |
5 |
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> > third parties are free to license however they like. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Could the Foundation make a formal statement to that effect, and could |
9 |
> wolf31o2 retract his claim that all ebuilds are derived works of |
10 |
> skel.ebuild? |
11 |
|
12 |
Chris doesn't need to retract his claim, because his claim is very |
13 |
likely false or at best immaterial. Finding out whether one work is a |
14 |
derivative of another is much too expensive. It's easier to state a |
15 |
copyright claim, in effect surrendering the copyright to the Gentoo |
16 |
Foundation, and be done with it, and then let the Gentoo Foundation set |
17 |
the license, in this case GPL-2. This happens to be exactly what the |
18 |
<header.txt> file[0] in gentoo-x86 is for, but sadly there is no |
19 |
documentation that explains this policy at all, it seems. |
20 |
|
21 |
To be exact, by submitting an ebuild, you actively surrender the |
22 |
copyright to the ebuild to the Gentoo Foundation, formerly Gentoo |
23 |
Technologies, Inc. [1], the original commit of skel.build (later |
24 |
skel.ebuild) already made this very clear: |
25 |
|
26 |
# Copyright 1999-2000 Gentoo Technologies, Inc. |
27 |
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, v2 or |
28 |
later |
29 |
# Author Your Name <your email> |
30 |
# $Header$ |
31 |
|
32 |
I remember seeing a less subtle statement to this effect (that the |
33 |
copyright to anything you submit to Gentoo's CVS is passed on to |
34 |
the Gentoo Project) a long time ago, probably in the devrel/recruiters |
35 |
documentation during my own recruitment. Right now I can only find |
36 |
this: |
37 |
|
38 |
"===Headers=== |
39 |
|
40 |
When you submit your ebuilds, the header should be exactly the same as |
41 |
the one in /usr/portage/header.txt. Most importantly, do not modify it |
42 |
in anyway and make sure that the $Header: $ line is intact."[2] |
43 |
|
44 |
Sadly, currently no document on www.gentoo.org explains the judicial |
45 |
better than [3], which has this: |
46 |
|
47 |
"The bureaucracy we mention includes: |
48 |
|
49 |
[...] |
50 |
|
51 |
- juridical protection: backing up the licenses Gentoo uses, |
52 |
maintaining the copyrights on Gentoo's software, documentation and |
53 |
other assets and protecting Gentoo's intellectual property" |
54 |
|
55 |
and also: |
56 |
|
57 |
"In other words, the Gentoo Foundation will: |
58 |
|
59 |
[...] |
60 |
|
61 |
- protect the developed code, documentation, artwork and other |
62 |
material through copyright and licenses" |
63 |
|
64 |
I think this lack of clarity calls for some changes to at least the |
65 |
policy documents. Ebuilds can probably not be considered proper |
66 |
derivatives of skel.[e]build, but IANAL, I can only say that having a |
67 |
court find this would be very expensive, whatever the outcome. |
68 |
|
69 |
|
70 |
Therefore, the copyright to an ebuild is or should be actively and |
71 |
simply turned over to the Gentoo Foundation by the developer, and this |
72 |
should be made policy and should be explained properly in a few places |
73 |
in our documentation. |
74 |
|
75 |
Should I file a documentation bug about this? |
76 |
|
77 |
|
78 |
Kind regards, |
79 |
JeR |
80 |
|
81 |
[0] http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/header.txt |
82 |
[1] http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/skel.ebuild |
83 |
[2] |
84 |
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=1 |
85 |
-- |
86 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |