| 1 |
On 11/24/18 6:11 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2018, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> The crux of the argument is about the maintenance of these copyright |
| 5 |
>> notices; not about the bytes they occupy or the CPU time spend reading |
| 6 |
>> them. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>> - When is it allowed to add extra notices? |
| 9 |
>> - When is it allowed to remove extra notices? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>> This is ultimately the problem I think we see with the SEI |
| 12 |
>> attribution. We don't understand *why* Sony wants the notice there and |
| 13 |
>> because of that we don't understand the answers to the above. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> We don't understand it because they refuse to give us an explanation. |
| 16 |
> Which is not our fault. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>> What I want to avoid happening is getting sued by Sony because the |
| 19 |
>> notices were added and then later removed; but we have not received |
| 20 |
>> guidance on this and I think it blocks us moving forward. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I don't see anything in the GPL-2 that would prevent us from removing |
| 23 |
> redundant copyright notices. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
The better question - why should things be copyrighted, |
| 27 |
and then made available under a FOSS/Libre license, and |
| 28 |
why is this different than public domain without any |
| 29 |
copyright protection of any kind? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
--- |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
On the topic of copyleft / copyright, as outlined by |
| 34 |
the free software foundation... dot dot dot |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#FSF-CopyrightedGNUSoftware |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
["The developers of GNU packages can transfer the copyright |
| 39 |
to the FSF, or they can keep it. The choice is theirs."] |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
["If they have transferred the copyright to the FSF, the |
| 42 |
program is FSF-copyrighted GNU software, and the FSF can |
| 43 |
enforce its license. If they have kept the copyright, |
| 44 |
enforcing the license is their responsibility."] |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
["The FSF does not accept copyright assignments of |
| 47 |
software that is not an official GNU package, as a rule."] |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
--- |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Does gentoo have a legal team or policy in place to protect |
| 52 |
copyleft-type legal interests against license infringers? |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
I'm not aware of anyone in this thread (or related ones) |
| 55 |
who is claiming gentoo should have copyright assignment, |
| 56 |
and a gentoo copyright notice will have teeth behind it, |
| 57 |
and if anyone infringes on FOSS/Libre licenses on anything |
| 58 |
which has a gentoo copyright, then there will be a legal |
| 59 |
response from the committee / project / team in charge of |
| 60 |
looking after the FOSS/Libre interests of anything under |
| 61 |
the umbrella of gentoo's copyrights. Then again... |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
One could argue gentoo hasn't pledged to defend the license |
| 64 |
for FOSS/Libre code, and could end up being less effective |
| 65 |
than letting the contributing company/entity/person decide |
| 66 |
for themselves if they'd rather maintain their own teeth. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
Toothless copyleft / copyright is as weak as public domain. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
I believe if sony is committing to release something under |
| 71 |
a FOSS/Libre/copyleft-type license, they should be able |
| 72 |
to thow their own legal team behind it. I don't represent |
| 73 |
sony, but I know that's my own intent since I know what my |
| 74 |
own intentions are when I attach a copyleft-type license |
| 75 |
to my own work. |
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
-- kuza |
Archives