| 1 |
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 9:08 AM kuzetsa <kuzetsa@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> in this case, the GCO (or the DCO from which it borrowed it's ideas) |
| 4 |
> should explicitly state its purposes, rather than relying on the |
| 5 |
> assumption that a person can be tracked down if the license was is ever |
| 6 |
> in doubt. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
While I'm all for having background, I don't see how it actually |
| 9 |
changes the situation. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Also, there is no need to track people down, ever. The purpose of the |
| 12 |
GCO/DCO is to make the contributor liable for their contributions, and |
| 13 |
this is already accomplished. If the true copyright holder wants to |
| 14 |
try to track them down that is their problem. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
If somebody provides us evidence that they are the true copyright |
| 17 |
holder and ask us to remove their code, we simply have to remove their |
| 18 |
code. No stack of licenses/certificates/attestations/etc will ever |
| 19 |
change that. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
It is like buying a house. If you buy a house from somebody, and it |
| 22 |
later turns out that they never owned the house, then the owner is |
| 23 |
going to be able to take his house back from you free of charge. It |
| 24 |
doesn't matter how many documents the "seller" signed in the process - |
| 25 |
it was never their house to sell. However, those documents CAN place |
| 26 |
some liability on them for such things, or provide you with due |
| 27 |
diligence / reasonable care so that it shows that you acted in good |
| 28 |
faith and the owner won't go after you beyond just getting back their |
| 29 |
house. You're still out the house either way. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I believe this is the basic principle behind these kinds of documents. |
| 32 |
It is basically an affirmation of compliance, which is a form of |
| 33 |
showing reasonable care on the part of the recipient. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> people can and do physically relocate from time to time, and if they're |
| 37 |
> no longer a contributor there's no way to track them down, should the |
| 38 |
> need arise for any legal or ethical questions (the kind of purpose which |
| 39 |
> the policy makes no mention of: a way to reach the contributor) |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
See above. Tracking down the contributor is unlikely to really get us |
| 43 |
far, and it really makes no sense. The purpose of the DCO is to |
| 44 |
collect the affirmation of compliance up-front so that we don't have |
| 45 |
to try to get it later. It doesn't change who owns copyright. If it |
| 46 |
turns out somebody lied to us then bad things will always happen, but |
| 47 |
they just won't be as bad as they could have been. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
Rich |
Archives