| 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. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Who is the project lead then? |
| 9 |
|
| 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? |
| 13 |
|
| 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... |
| 17 |
|
| 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 |
| 22 |
http://foundation.gentoo.org. |
| 23 |
|
| 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. |
| 30 |
|
| 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? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Copyright assignment (first to Gentoo Technologies, Inc., then to |
| 36 |
Gentoo Foundation, Inc.) has *ALWAYS* been Gentoo policy. |
| 37 |
|
| 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: |
| 44 |
|
| 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. |
| 50 |
|
| 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. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
I'd be really surprised - flabbergasted, really - if this has changed. |
| 58 |
But at this point I almost wouldn't be surprised. :) |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
-Daniel |
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives