| 1 |
On Thursday 07 October 2004 21:59, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> In the |
| 3 |
> second case, many devs signed an agreement already saying anything they |
| 4 |
> wrote and added to Gentoo CVS is Gentoo's. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
This always seemed like an odd policy to me. Linus doesn't require |
| 7 |
contributions to the kernel to have copyright assigned to him, and I don't |
| 8 |
see why we need to. In fact, it works against our ability to enforce |
| 9 |
copyrights. Suppose that some UK company starts breaking the copyright of |
| 10 |
gentoo in some way, despite the fact that I have written ebuilds etc. I now |
| 11 |
have no way of taking legal action against them, as I no longer have any |
| 12 |
legal control over my contributions. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Instead of having a large globally distributed group of people each capable of |
| 15 |
taking legal action against infringers, we now have one |
| 16 |
NFP legal entity that afaik exists (legally) only in 1 US state. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives