| 1 |
On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 06:49:11PM -0400, Chris Reffett wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 4/9/2019 6:10 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On 4/10/19 12:05 AM, Michael Everitt wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> Not all cases are simply ones where a person does not wish to use their |
| 6 |
> >> full given name, there are perfectly decent arguments for using a pseudonym |
| 7 |
> >> when there could be mild or severe ramifications if their true identity was |
| 8 |
> >> in the public domain. I'm thinking as obvious examples of those involved in |
| 9 |
> >> security/penetration work, where it may be required, and not simply |
| 10 |
> >> desirable to keep ones primary identity confidential. Are we really so |
| 11 |
> >> draconian to eliminate these (often very well-skilled individuals) for |
| 12 |
> >> making a specialist contribution to Gentoo Linux?! |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > The ultimate goal is to ensure that contributions are actually by the |
| 15 |
> > ones holding a valid copyright, or the contribution being of a license |
| 16 |
> > that is allowed under a license from the copyright holder. As mentioned |
| 17 |
> > in the link in prior post, GPL itself doesn't explicitly exclude the |
| 18 |
> > warranty of non-infridgement under UCC which can have severe legal |
| 19 |
> > consequences if a third party relies on the contribution, and as such |
| 20 |
> > puts Gentoo in a legal liability if we can't reasonably explain such |
| 21 |
> > contributions. As long as the copyright is valid and we can document it, |
| 22 |
> > it is fine, but as soon as things gets murky... |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Michael, I would be very intrigued to read about such pseudonyms being |
| 27 |
required by cybersecurity folks... references? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Cheers, |
| 31 |
Aaron |
Archives