1 |
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> This made me think of another scenario; let's say I have my own fork of |
3 |
> Gentoo, maintained in an overlay complete with docs, etc, under an MIT |
4 |
> or BSD license, but as a Gentoo developer, I must copyright under GPL. |
5 |
> Could I do such dual licensing on a case-by-case basis because (in this |
6 |
> hypothetical) I'm the original author of the ebuilds? |
7 |
|
8 |
Well, you could certainly dual-license anything you're the author of. |
9 |
A complete fork of Gentoo under the BSD license would probably be |
10 |
impractical though since you'd have to rewrite everything. |
11 |
|
12 |
> |
13 |
> If so, then Matt's coworker could offer the same ebuild under a |
14 |
> Gentoo-friendly license and maintain copyright on Google's overlay. The |
15 |
> only question at that point would be Google's own copyright policy and |
16 |
> whether or not its employees own any of what they produce on company time. |
17 |
|
18 |
The chromiumos ebuilds are already under a friendly license. The only |
19 |
issue is what to put in the copyright header. Under the proposed new |
20 |
policy the ebuilds could just be copied into the tree wholesale, since |
21 |
they're already under the correct license and the chromiumos headers |
22 |
would be fine under the new policy, perhaps just with the addition of |
23 |
"and others" as soon as any changes get made. |
24 |
|
25 |
If they were under a non-compatible license like the CDDL then it |
26 |
would depend on whether the authors have the right to dual-license it |
27 |
under the GPL, or whether Gentoo is willing to accept CDDL-licensed |
28 |
ebuilds into the repository. Part of the draft policy is that every |
29 |
Gentoo project/repository have a list of accepted licenses. Off the |
30 |
top of my head I can't think of any issues with allowing incompatible |
31 |
but similar copyleft licenses into the main tree. The files |
32 |
themselves are standalone, and I'm not sure to what degree the actual |
33 |
built binaries inherit their copyright. Perhaps there are some |
34 |
situations where you could have bindist issues, but I suspect they |
35 |
would be isolated. |
36 |
|
37 |
I was actually chatting with somebody about the issue of package |
38 |
licensing vs upstream licensing (which is an issue we don't have as |
39 |
many problems with since we don't aggregate package metadata with the |
40 |
actual package contents). We didn't really talk about the licensing |
41 |
of the final on-system binary which is mainly upstream-controlled but |
42 |
whose installation details are influenced by the distro. |
43 |
|
44 |
-- |
45 |
Rich |