| 1 |
On Fri, 2004-10-08 at 07:04, Jon Portnoy wrote: |
| 2 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright explains all of this. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Assigning copyright to Gentoo is quite necessary and will not be |
| 5 |
> changed. This has all been discussed to death back when it was |
| 6 |
> implemented. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
The question still remains for patches. We can't assign other people's |
| 9 |
copyrights for them, so we (apparently) can't keep their patches in CVS, |
| 10 |
so there end up being a bunch of different repositories all over the |
| 11 |
place to maintain Gentoo packages. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
And if we're allowing non-Gentoo-owned patches to be in CVS, all |
| 14 |
copyrighted by other people, we should also allow Gentoo devs to retain |
| 15 |
copyright on their patches. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
What I want here is a way to maintain my patches in a way that allows |
| 18 |
shared development without having my own server. Since they're for |
| 19 |
Gentoo, it only makes sense to me that I should be able to maintain them |
| 20 |
using Gentoo CVS. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Someone brought up the idea of arch yesterday. Maybe that's what I'll |
| 23 |
have to do, even though it sucks because it raises the barrier to get |
| 24 |
into X. It's tough enough to get recruits now. Making them learn two |
| 25 |
separate and very different VCS's will only make it worse. |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 28 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives