| 1 |
On Friday 08 October 2004 15:04, Jon Portnoy wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 12:47:09PM +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > This always seemed like an odd policy to me. Linus doesn't require |
| 5 |
> > contributions to the kernel to have copyright assigned to him, and I |
| 6 |
> > don't see why we need to. In fact, it works against our ability to |
| 7 |
> > enforce copyrights. Suppose that some UK company starts breaking the |
| 8 |
> > copyright of gentoo in some way, despite the fact that I have written |
| 9 |
> > ebuilds etc. I now have no way of taking legal action against them, as I |
| 10 |
> > no longer have any legal control over my contributions. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright explains all of this. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Assigning copyright to Gentoo is quite necessary and will not be |
| 15 |
> changed. This has all been discussed to death back when it was |
| 16 |
> implemented. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Except the reasoning is based on the flawed premise: |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
"This is a benefit because all owners of the code in question must be a party |
| 21 |
in any legal action." |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
This isn't true. The netfilter team have been active in suing GPL violators of |
| 24 |
the linux kernel in Europe, which wouldn't have been possible under the |
| 25 |
current gentoo policy. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives