| 1 |
On Monday 20 June 2005 10:27 am, Grant Goodyear wrote: |
| 2 |
> That's quite true. On the other hand, it's not clear to me that Gentoo |
| 3 |
> is notably more vulnerable than the Linux kernel, which also lacks |
| 4 |
> copyright assignment. Why does their system work for them, but won't |
| 5 |
> work for us? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Don't know that it "works" per se.. but on the other hand, it's hard telling |
| 8 |
that an assignment doc would cover all of the bases either |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> I have to admit that I'm not all that sanguine about being able to come |
| 11 |
> up with a workable copyright assignment system. For those who don't |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Yeah, honestly I don't know that the trouble of working up and collecting |
| 14 |
assignment docs is worthwhile either. It would have to be an all or nothing |
| 15 |
thing to make it work (for the portage code at least), and that alone could |
| 16 |
cause quite a rift. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> So, I tend to think that we're going to have to be more creative. If |
| 19 |
> portage code were stolen, could the Foundation not organize and finance |
| 20 |
> a legal response on behalf of (and with the explicit consent of) our |
| 21 |
> portage devs? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Possible.. One big snag here would be (hypothetically) with any contributors |
| 24 |
who are no longer active developers, have left the project, and are not |
| 25 |
willing to help. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Cheers, |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-C |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Corey Shields |
| 33 |
Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team and Devrel Team |
| 34 |
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees |
| 35 |
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields |
Archives