Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Daniel Robbins <drobbins.daniel@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 08:31:42
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting by Ciaran McCreesh
1 On 3/3/07, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org> wrote:
2 > > But you appear to act as the project lead for PMS.
3 >
4 > No, I'm just the one who isn't yet sufficiently jaded by the whole
5 > "people who don't know what PMS is jumping in and trying to derail it"
6 > thing to have given up discussing it in public yet.
8 Who is the project lead then?
10 Also, you are at least a developer of PMS, if not the lead. If PMS is
11 an official Gentoo project, then since when can official Gentoo
12 projects have "non-dev" devs?
14 > I'd be interested to see where this policy is documented. The licence
15 > requirements are in the social contract; what about copyright? As far
16 > as I'm aware, copyright requirements are only imposed upon the tree...
18 The Foundation was created to hold the copyrights for all Gentoo
19 source code and documentation, logos, etc. I assigned the copyright of
20 all Gentoo source code and documentation to the Gentoo Foundation for
21 this purpose. This purpose (among others) is documented at
24 In the event of a copyright violation, the Foundation is able to hire
25 a lawyer and act on behalf of all the copyright assignors. Without the
26 assignment this is very difficult to do. If you would like to be able
27 to have Gentoo enforce the terms of its licenses, then this is
28 important. The FSF does the same thing. You know all this already. If
29 you disagree with this approach, I certainly understand.
31 > I'm also curious as to why people should be expected to assign
32 > copyright to a group that is known for licence violations and removing
33 > attribution from documents. How does this protect anything?
35 Copyright assignment (first to Gentoo Technologies, Inc., then to
36 Gentoo Foundation, Inc.) has *ALWAYS* been Gentoo policy.
38 I never served on the Foundation (resigned right after appointing
39 trustees,) so I'm not in a position to defend the Foundation against
40 any of your accusations (and if you do have juicy details of
41 Foundation misconduct, I'm not interested in discussing them with you
42 right now - I don't expect that the trustees were perfect, they were
43 all learning on the job, but certainly not evil) - but I would say:
45 1) Any material created by Gentoo developers, as part of an official
46 Gentoo Project, needs to have copyright assigned to the Gentoo
47 Foundation, whether or not it is currently included in the Portage
48 tree. This protects all of our collective contributions against
49 misuse, which is why it is policy.
51 2) Any material not assigned to the Gentoo Foundation cannot be
52 considered an official Gentoo Project. It would not fall under the
53 umbrella/scope of the development project that is Gentoo, which is in
54 part a legal structure to protect our collective work, (code, logos,
55 etc.) and would be considered a third-party project.
57 I'd be really surprised - flabbergasted, really - if this has changed.
58 But at this point I almost wouldn't be surprised. :)
60 -Daniel
61 --
62 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list