| 1 |
On 11/23/18 2:46 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 2:21 PM Sarah White <kuzetsa@××××××××××.ovh> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> it comes down to, I think - does gentoo wish to own |
| 5 |
>> everything and hold copyright? that's much easier to |
| 6 |
>> accept if the contributors are under contract and are |
| 7 |
>> employed by gentoo. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Nobody is suggesting that multiple copyright owners shouldn't be |
| 11 |
> allowed. Merely that multiple copyright owners shouldn't be named in |
| 12 |
> the copyright notice. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
The interest in removing or discouraging a more verbose, |
| 15 |
explicit copyright notice would suggest the only legitimate |
| 16 |
interest should be assumed to be in "gentoo authors", and |
| 17 |
for no other entity(s) or person(s) need have any stake |
| 18 |
in having a well-structured copyright notice (any format) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> A proper copyright notice must name one or more owners, but you don't |
| 21 |
> have to list all the owners in a proper notice, and you don't have to |
| 22 |
> be listed in a notice to own a copyright on something. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
It depends. It is not proper to remove an otherwise valid |
| 26 |
copyright notice (though it's likely proper / "good enough" |
| 27 |
if a simplified attribution of the form "gentoo authors" |
| 28 |
is used instead - that's fine on an opt-in basis) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Either way: multiline copyright notices are legally valid, |
| 31 |
or is that meant to be disputed? I'm not clear on the |
| 32 |
intent for this comment: |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
["...don't have to be listed in a notice"] |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- kuza |
Archives