| 1 |
On 09/27/2018 08:42 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 8:00 AM NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> On 09/26/2018 03:25 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> Here is another small update of the copyright GLEP, resulting from a |
| 6 |
>>> recent discussion on IRC. This is not a change of policy, but merely |
| 7 |
>>> a clarification of the real name requirement: |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> - The Signed-off-by line must contain the name of a natural person. |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> - A copyright holder can be a legal entity (e.g., a company) in some |
| 12 |
>>> jurisdictions. |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> IANAL, but as per the Berne Convention, anonymous and pseudonymous works |
| 16 |
>> are granted copyright protection. What's the rationale behind mandating |
| 17 |
>> a real name? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> The DCO/GCO have nothing to do with obtaining copyright protection. |
| 20 |
> This is always present if not waived. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> It is about showing due diligence in the event somebody claims that |
| 23 |
> somebody ripped off their work and contributed it to Gentoo without |
| 24 |
> authorization. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> If your real name is attached to a statement saying that you didn't |
| 27 |
> steal the work, and you did steal the work, then they can go after you |
| 28 |
> as well as Gentoo. That deters contributing stuff without checking on |
| 29 |
> its legality. That same deterrence also helps show good faith on |
| 30 |
> Gentoo's part. This is why organizations generally pursue these |
| 31 |
> policies. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> If somebody violates a copyright anonymously, then they have no skin |
| 34 |
> in the game. They can just disappear if anything bad happens. If a |
| 35 |
> contributor isn't willing to stake their own money and reputation on |
| 36 |
> the statement that something is legal to contribute, then why should |
| 37 |
> Gentoo assume that they've put a lot of effort into the accuracy of |
| 38 |
> that statement? |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
in this case, the GCO (or the DCO from which it borrowed it's ideas) |
| 42 |
should explicitly state its purposes, rather than relying on the |
| 43 |
assumption that a person can be tracked down if the license was is ever |
| 44 |
in doubt. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
people can and do physically relocate from time to time, and if they're |
| 47 |
no longer a contributor there's no way to track them down, should the |
| 48 |
need arise for any legal or ethical questions (the kind of purpose which |
| 49 |
the policy makes no mention of: a way to reach the contributor) |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
- via key |
Archives