| 1 |
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 07:58:08 -0800 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 11:18 PM Sarah White <kuzetsa@××××××××××.ovh> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > On 11/13/2018 09:46 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 06:17:17PM -0800, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 9 |
> > >> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 10:32 AM William Hubbs |
| 10 |
> > >> <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 11 |
> > >>> |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > multiline (standard form) copyright attribution doesn't have |
| 14 |
> > anything to do with licensing, and only serves to strengthen |
| 15 |
> > copyleft due to the presence of additional copyright notices which |
| 16 |
> > clearly lay out a list of entities / people with a stake in |
| 17 |
> > protecting the interests of an opensource project remaining |
| 18 |
> > FOSS/Libre. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> First, git already does this. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
It does not, it lists authors, not copyright holders which are not the |
| 23 |
same thing. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Second, please cite an example of a copyright lawsuit that was won |
| 26 |
> because multiple notices were listed, or a law that provides |
| 27 |
> protection if multiple notices are provided. Your claim that doing |
| 28 |
> this "strengthen[s] copyleft" is baseless as far as I can tell. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I don't think it's about citing cases, the GPL has never gotten to |
| 31 |
trial AFAIK, so under that metric, the GPL is useless. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> The presence of any copyright notice in the form given in US law |
| 34 |
> already defeats the innocent infringement defense, even if it doesn't |
| 35 |
> mention you. Beyond that copyright law applies whether there is any |
| 36 |
> notice at all. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> > gentoo's license policy already |
| 39 |
> > requires FOSS/Libre licenses and correctly using copyright law for |
| 40 |
> > copyleft purposes makes everything work correctly when it's used |
| 41 |
> > correctly. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> Indeed, and for this reason I don't actually see any reason under US |
| 44 |
> copyright law that we couldn't strip out additional copyright notices |
| 45 |
> in code as a result. US law explicitly makes this illegal only if it |
| 46 |
> is done to hide infringement, and we don't infringe copyright. I can |
| 47 |
> only imagine the wails of the copyright pro-spam crowd if we actually |
| 48 |
> tried that (not that I'm suggesting it)... |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Are you suggesting that stripping out copyright headers is permissable? |
| 51 |
I would talk to a copyright lawyer before making any such assumptions. |
| 52 |
That would imply that chromeos could stip out all the Gentoo |
| 53 |
copyrights and replace them with chrome project ones. Other Gentoo |
| 54 |
derivatives could do the same thing, as long as it retains the GPL, all |
| 55 |
is permitted. |
Archives