| 1 |
On 10/27/2016 08:31 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> I would conclude that the intention is that the whole of the Linux |
| 5 |
>> kernel can be distributed under the GPL, version 2, unless noted |
| 6 |
>> otherwise. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Stepping back, I'd just like to comment that while I hold an opinion |
| 10 |
> on this that is likely different from gregkh, and possibly the Linux |
| 11 |
> Foundation, I suspect this is going to be moot since as far as I can |
| 12 |
> tell we aren't modifying the DCO and don't really think we need to. |
| 13 |
> So, it is probably simpler to avoid controversy by just incorporating |
| 14 |
> it by reference under their original name, which is certainly the |
| 15 |
> intention of the Linux Foundation in promoting it. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I think it is an interesting discussion/debate as to whether the Linux |
| 18 |
> Foundation has or hasn't effectively released the DCO under the GPL |
| 19 |
> with no further restrictions. However, I don't think it ultimately is |
| 20 |
> going to drive what we do. So, we can just have our private opinions |
| 21 |
> here, and I do get Greg's arguments (and I acknowledge that he is a |
| 22 |
> bit of an expert in this space). |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I'll just note that tempest in a teapot actually drives home the |
| 25 |
> importance of explicit copyright and license notices, since it is the |
| 26 |
> absence of any such notice in this file that is in part driving this |
| 27 |
> controversy. Some of the potential ambiguities with our own current |
| 28 |
> policy could create similar issues, and they have in fact gotten |
| 29 |
> people upset when code was brought into a Gentoo repository without a |
| 30 |
> good policy on how to handle the copyright notices. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Authorship and ownership matter to people. A good copyright policy is |
| 33 |
> about respecting the rights of others as much as preserving our own. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> (And, as always, everything above is just my personal opinion...) |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
Forgive me, but I don't see why people have so much trouble with |
| 38 |
copyright wrt Gentoo. I've simply assumed anything I wrote for Gentoo |
| 39 |
would be attributed to me via git log information and/or metadata.xml |
| 40 |
and should I leave Gentoo, Gentoo keeps the rights to it since I'm |
| 41 |
contributing to it. Nothing stops me from pushing ebuilds to my personal |
| 42 |
overlay *and* the primary Gentoo tree. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
With a DCO, it greatly complicates things. Would my right to keep my |
| 45 |
contributions in an overlay be infringed upon? What would change if we |
| 46 |
switch to this? |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
It's just odd to me that in one case (the comrel deal) we're aiming to |
| 49 |
simplify, but with copyright we're seemingly complicating things for -- |
| 50 |
through my perspective -- little gain. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Is anyone at Gentoo actually concerned about the copyright of their ebuilds? |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer |
| 56 |
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net |
| 57 |
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6 |
Archives