Re: [gentoo-dev] Copyright issues (Was: udev-ng?)

[Richard Yao]

On 11/18/2012 09:58 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 07:06:50AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> COPYRIGHT
>>
>> I think this issue is best dealt with on the side - it has no bearing
>> on any of the really contentious points here.
>>
>> I note that the owners of the copyright on udev have announced to the
>> world that (emphasis mine):
>> You may modify your copy or copies of the Library or ANY PORTION OF
>> IT, thus forming a work based on the Library, and copy and distribute
>> such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above,
>> provided that you also meet all of these conditions...
>>
>> None of those conditions included keeping the copyright line intact.
>
> True, but removing a copyright line doesn't change the real copyright of
> a file, although it is generally considered something that you really
> should not do at all (see your local copyright laws/rules for details.)
>
>> Anybody can therefore alter the copyright line as they wish, as they
>> have been given explicit permission to do so.  They need only comply
>> with the other terms in the LGPL to do so (the most important being
>> licensing it under the LGPL and making the source available.
>
> Heh, wait, no, you can not do that.  You can not modify a copyright line
> to add your own, without first doing one of the two things I discussed
> in the beginning.  Otherwise, don't you think that all of those big
> companies that are using Linux and other open source projects would have
> done something like this already?
>
>> In fact, (L)GPL v3 has an optional attribution clause, and the fact
>> that they made this explicit is because some projects might not want
>> to give out this authorization.
>
> Changing the lines in the comment block in the code files is not what
> attribution clauses are about at all.
>
> I could go into details about copyright, and how it works, and how you
> need to treat it if you are a programmer, but I'm not a lawyer, and the
> rules are different in different countries and even states.
>
> I have, however, worked with a very large number of lawyers, and
> companies, and have the basics down, and none of what you say above is
> really allowed at all, sorry.
>
> Also note, if you just remove code from a file, you don't get copyright
> of the file, which is a fun thing to think about if you are trying to
> remove features from a product, or doing 'git revert' of specific
> patchsets.
>
>> So, if you want an official ruling from the trustees we would need to
>> meet/vote on it and perhaps discuss with counsel, but my thinking is
>> that anybody distributing work under the (L)GPL has waived their right
>> to be named on the copyright line of any copies distributed by others,
>
> Again, no, this is flat out not right.  Please discuss with counsel if
> you disagree and they can go into the details.
>
>> and as far as I can tell I have found nothing to the contrary from any
>> authoritative source.
>
> Talk to a copyright lawyer please.  I'm sure there is one that the
> Foundation uses, right?
>
>> Again, that's my two cents and not a license for anybody to do
>> anything.  This topic did come up recently with regard to accepting
>> some other kind of outside work into Gentoo, and as I recall there was
>> some debate over whether the copyright notices could be changed.  I'd
>> have to dig up the details - I think the issue might have been mooted
>> before any kind of formal decision was reached...
>
> I think this is something that the Foundation's counsel better get set
> up properly, as it really is a big deal, and can come back to cause big
> problems if done wrong.  I say this as someone who has been part of
> lawsuits dealing with this type of thing, and as someone who has worked
> with lawyers on copyright issues for open source projects for a very
> long time[1].
>
> But as always, talk to a lawyer, I suggest that the Foundation do this
> to set up the proper guidelines and rules that all Gentoo developers
> need to follow.  That will clear all of this confusion up properly.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

We develop open source software in public repositories. A developer
decided it would be helpful to change the software name systemd to
eudev, among other things, in various files after misunderstanding what
the Foundation officers in charge of legal matters had approved. You
objected to it. I asked for clarification after seeing that your name
had not been removed from any copyright notices. You explained your
complaint. I asked you to wait for the person who wrote the commit to
fix it. It was fixed.

That is all that was necessary. Whining on the list did not wake the
author of that commit sooner. Furthermore, the changes that you wanted
would have been made in a few days had you not become involved.