[gentoo-dev] Summary: "Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?"

[Alec Berryman]

Thread summary: "Why should copyright assignment be a requirement?"

(New, and improved!  With links to gmane!)

Paul started up the thread by asking if ebuild contributors were
required to assign their copyright to Gentoo Linux, or if licensing them
under the GNU GPL was sufficient. [1]  He said later that he is
reluctant to give up his copyright. [2]
  
Jon Portnoy was the first to comment that Gentoo Technologies, Inc.
needed to own copyright on the ebuilds in order to defend its
intellectual property. [3]  If someone decided to put a more restrictive
the license on an ebuild, he said, GTI would have no legal recourse.  

Daniel Robbins wrote that the current system of assigning all copyright
to Gentoo Technologies, Inc. "allowed us to comply with the GPL and get
back to coding." [4]  Having multiple copyright holders for GPL code was
an advantage, and said it had not caught on in Gentoo yet.  He went on
to say:

"ebuilds should be copyright Gentoo Technologies, Inc. *and* the
original author/submitter, with a note for all additional cvs
committers. What this does is prevent Gentoo or the original committer
or later contributors from changing the license away from the GPL 2
unless all copyright holders agree. This basically makes it practically
impossible for code to be hijacked from our tree, or from our users (by
me presumably, after going on some kind of evil kick.) This seems
near-ideal. It would be helpful if a GPL and copyright expert could
review and comment."

This e-mail was CC'd to Richard Stallman, but no reply has been posted
to the list yet.

Without a definitive answer, the thread continued with suggestions and
debate.

Paul de Vrieze asked that all submitters attach an e-mail address for
contacting purposes. [5]

Mike Gardiner pointed to bug 16001, where the issue of creating ebuilds
from skel.ebuild was causing confusion. [6]  John Mylchreest made two
important observations: copyright required that GTI be attributed in all
ebuilds derived from skel.ebuild [6.1], and that repoman automates
copyright in the ebuild headers. [6.2]  The summarizer is unfamiliar
with repoman; does this automated tool only insert a copyright for
Gentoo?

After a lengthy discussion with Paul, Jon Portnoy compared Gentoo's
position to that of the FSF; in order to contribute code to the GNU
project, you must assign them copyright for the FSF's protection. [7] 
Paul replied that he now understood the situation. [8]  Chris
Bainbridge, continuing Paul's reserve of the still for-profit GTI
controlling copyright, asked what would happen if Gentoo were to lose a
court case and be bankrupt; would it then have to sell its intellectual
property? [9]    Brian Jackson replied that the code in its current form
could not be "un-GPL'd." [10]  This sentiment was echoed throughout the
thread.

Luke-Jr saw the only reason for GTI to own the copyright was to be able
to change the license on future releases. [11]  Jon Portnoy added that
written policy would be formed after Daniel had consulted with his
lawyer. [12]



Please correct me if I've mistaken anything here.  If you only read one
post, read #4.

-Alec Berryman

[1]  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/11389
[2]  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/11418
[3]  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/11391
[4]  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/11417
[5]  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/11432
[6]  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/11399
  [6.1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16001#c12
  [6.2] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16001#c15
[7]  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/11415
[8]  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/11419
[9]  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/11429
[10] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/11447
[11] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/11434
[12] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/11392