Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] GLEP 76: Copyright Policy
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 17:57:56
Message-Id: e778fc46-7a10-d473-e0f9-be8a9ad87655@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] GLEP 76: Copyright Policy by Ulrich Mueller
On 06/11/2018 01:27 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, NP-Hardass wrote: > >> On 06/10/2018 04:34 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> [...] > >>> Copyright Attribution >>> --------------------- >>> >>> All files included in Gentoo projects must contain an appropriate >>> copyright notice, as defined by this policy. >>> >>> A proper copyright notice appears near the top of the file, and reads:: >>> >>> Copyright YEARS LARGEST-CONTRIBUTOR [OTHER-CONTRIBUTORS] and others >>> >>> The largest contributor is whatever entity owns copyright to some >>> portion of the largest number of lines in the file. Additional >>> contributors can be listed, but this is neither required nor >>> recommended. The "and others" text may be omitted if the explicitly >>> listed contributors hold copyright to the entire file. > >> Why is this not recommended? Here are a couple of scenarios that came to >> mind that lead to me to question how that would play out: >> If developer A writes 51% of the lines of an ebuild and developer B >> writes 49%, should B not be listed? > > With the current policy neither of them is listed, so listing A would > be an improvement. The goal is to keep things simple, and listing only > the largest contributor looks like the simplest solution. For example, > listing the two largest contributors would lead to similar problems. > What should we do if A and B each write 34% and C writes 32%? > > In a previous version of the draft, we had required a full list of > copyright holders to be listed somewhere in the file, and 60% of the > lines to be accounted for: > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/glep.git/commit/?id=bb756839bbd403059f6faeceaa114346d2a840d7 > > We changed that because neither tracing the number of lines nor > maintaining a list of authors in every ebuild seems feasible. > >> What if all the metadata lines defining variables consists of 75% of the >> file and was written by A, but the core functionality of the ebuild (25% >> by size) was written by B? > > That would get us into a discussion on which portions of an ebuild are > copyrightable and which are not. Again, we want simple rules there. > >> If A writes an ebuild, and B replaces a majority (>50%) of the ebuild, >> should B remove A from attribution? >> I think that specifying that substantial (though not necessarily >> specific in defining this) contributions/contributors should included in >> the copyright attribution and that substantial contribution attribution >> *is* recommended. > > See above. Explicitly listing only one copyright holder in the > copyright line looks like the simplest possible solution. Listing > nobody would be even simpler, but I think that you cannot have a > copyright line without at least one entity. > > Also note that the exercise is _not_ about giving credit to authors > (and we currently don't do that with the Foundation copyright either). > The purpose of the copyright notice is to make a statement that the > work is copyrighted, in order to defeat a possible defense of > "innocent infringement".
Hence the "and others." Got it. I think that slipped my mind when I typed up the email. IANAL, so as long as "and others" would hold its weight in copyright litigation, SGTM; my points are pretty much moot. I guess I (wrongly) assumed it was partly a crediting thing. Thanks for the clarification.
> > Ulrich >
-- NP-Hardass

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature