Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:44:53
Message-Id: 1477565080.6506.10.camel@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus? by Kent Fredric
1 Ühel kenal päeval, K, 26.10.2016 kell 14:58, kirjutas Kent Fredric:
2 > On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:25:52 +0200
3 > Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
4 >
5 > >
6 > > And I guess that even most ebuilds for new
7 > > packages aren't written from scratch, but will be based on an
8 > > existing
9 > > ebuild or on some template like skel.ebuild.
10 >
11 > You could probably argue that subsequently, every ebuild is
12 > essentially
13 > a derived work of the first ebuild, and thus, a derived work of
14 > Gentoo's copyright.
15
16 Please don't confuse copyright with licensing. They are completely
17 different things. You don't get my copyright if I derive something on
18 your work you allow me to with the license you've chosen for your
19 copyrightable work. If you did, you could then relicense everything to
20 a proprietary license, including my work. But you can't, because you
21 don't have the copyright to the code I did, because I didn't reassign
22 it and didn't give you a permission to do that (e.g by licensing my
23 code under some BSD license or signing some sort of a copyright
24 assignment or CLA). You might just reasonably assume I have licensed my
25 code under the same license the whole codebase was in, and this is what
26 should be explicitly known to be the case to be safer.
27
28 With GPL (and other) licenses, copyright is what gives the power to
29 enforce the license. Derivative work is related to the GPL license
30 requirement, it has (imho) nothing to do with copyright beyond
31 copyright law allowing to enforce the license (and copyright law basics
32 being adopted by most of the world via the Berne Convention).
33
34 > The format is so regularised 2 people could independently create the
35 > same ebuild.
36
37 These ebuilds are probably not copyrightable work in the first place.
38 But it's hard to judge, so people tend to assume it is to be on the
39 safe side.
40
41 > Not because there's any real rules to how we order things, but
42 > because
43 > people take their advice at how to write ebuilds by copying other
44 > existing ones.
45
46 IANAL,
47 Mart