| 1 |
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Denis Dupeyron <calchan@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> That said, we could always make it possible for the developer to |
| 4 |
> voluntarily assign copyright to the foundation if (s)he so desires. |
| 5 |
> And I would certainly do that for myself. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
The envisioned approach was being able to voluntarily sign the FLA. |
| 9 |
The wording of the FLA "...assigns to Gentoo the Copyright in computer |
| 10 |
programs and other copyrightable material world-wide, or in countries |
| 11 |
where such an assignment is not possible, grants an exclusive |
| 12 |
licence..." |
| 13 |
https://dev.gentoo.org/~rich0/fla.pdf (.tex extension also at this URL) |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
It also has some copyleft style protections so it isn't the universal |
| 16 |
handover of rights typically associated with a CLA. It is based on an |
| 17 |
FSFe template. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I think it is worth better understanding some of the personal legal |
| 20 |
risks you bring up. Obviously if you don't have any personal |
| 21 |
"property" in the copyrights there is less incentive to go after you |
| 22 |
as an individual, though more incentive to go after the Foundation. |
| 23 |
The copyleft provisions might act as a poison pill to deter going |
| 24 |
after either (to truly seize the copyrights you might actually have to |
| 25 |
successfully sue both parties, possibly in different countries, and if |
| 26 |
you want to seize the entire distro's copyrights you could have to sue |
| 27 |
hundreds of people). We just need to make sure we don't tick off the |
| 28 |
RIAA... |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Rich |
Archives