Re: [gentoo-nfp] Soliciting Feedback: Gentoo Copyright Assignments / Licensing

[Alec Warner]

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
> Announcing once to -dev-announce due to the general importance of this
> topic to the community, but ALL replies should go to -nfp, or to
> trustees@ if you must, or to /dev/null if you shouldn't.
>
> Before I start, yes, the trustees realize that there are legal issues
> around copyright assignment in general, and that various workaround
> exist and may or may not work, such as various contributor licensing
> agreements that are used by various organizations, especially in
> Europe.  The purpose of this thread isn't really to debate this topic,
> as it might be moot in any case.
>
> The question we would like to get feedback from the Gentoo community
> on is this: is copyright assignment (or something like it) something
> Gentoo should even be pursuing, and if so, to what degree?  Should we
> turn away contributions where assignments are not made?  Should we aim
> for a voluntary but encouraged approach as used by KDE e.V.?  Should
> we pursue this for some Gentoo projects but not others (such as for
> portage (the package manager), and perhaps eclass code, but not
> ebuilds)?

We have certainly 'gotten by' without one. So my question to you is
more along the lines of why we would pursue such action.

* Not everyone would sign an agreement.
* The agreement can't cover all past work, because not all (former)
contributors will sign, or are even alive.
* Are there any legal risks, if any, for not owning the copyright directly?

>
> Set aside the mechanics of how this would be accomplished for now.  I
> don't think that this is likely to be the source of any great
> controversy, though if we pursue this we will no doubt solicit
> comments on any proposals.  Likewise, set aside any issues pertaining
> to history of what the status quo actually is.  The larger issue is
> where Gentoo wants to be with regard to "ownership" (or whatever the
> appropriate term is) of its code.  Where we are going is more
> important than how we get there.
>
> The main arguments for owning copyright of something would be:
> 1.  Legal simplicity
> 2.  Ability to re-license (obviously in accordance with the social
> contract, and this could even be enforced with a model like the FSFe's
> FLA)

We can only re-license code that we have an agreement for. Is having
YY% of the code under an agreement worthwhile?

> 3.  Standing to pursue copyleft license violations

Same point as 2.

>
> The main arguments for not owning copyright of something would be:
> 1.  Some potential contributors might refuse to contribute
> 2.  Ability to merge license-compatible code without needing the
> cooperation of its author
>
> There are numerous details to be worked out either way, and we don't
> need to settle those in advance.
>
> Feedback from any member of the Gentoo community (loosely defined) is
> welcome.  If anybody has STRONG feelings on this matter, please be
> sure to voice them either in public or in private, as I can't
> guarantee that there will be another opportunity to do so.
>
> For those wondering where this is going:  Right now the Foundation is
> soliciting info from other organizations and will be soliciting legal
> advice regarding how we might implement whatever course of action we
> choose to take.  If community consensus seems to be obvious in the
> replies to this email we may very well form concrete proposals and put
> them out for comment before enacting new policy.  If consensus is not
> clear we may seek further input in the form of binding or non-binding
> votes from the Foundation membership.  Obviously our goal isn't to
> stir up a hornet's nest, so assume that the Trustees will use
> reasonable discretion.
>
> For the Trustees (who are welcome to chime in with any
> questions/nuances I missed),
>
> Richard Freeman
>