| 1 |
On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 8:00 AM NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 09/26/2018 03:25 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Here is another small update of the copyright GLEP, resulting from a |
| 5 |
> > recent discussion on IRC. This is not a change of policy, but merely |
| 6 |
> > a clarification of the real name requirement: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > - The Signed-off-by line must contain the name of a natural person. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > - A copyright holder can be a legal entity (e.g., a company) in some |
| 11 |
> > jurisdictions. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> IANAL, but as per the Berne Convention, anonymous and pseudonymous works |
| 15 |
> are granted copyright protection. What's the rationale behind mandating |
| 16 |
> a real name? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The DCO/GCO have nothing to do with obtaining copyright protection. |
| 19 |
This is always present if not waived. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
It is about showing due diligence in the event somebody claims that |
| 22 |
somebody ripped off their work and contributed it to Gentoo without |
| 23 |
authorization. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
If your real name is attached to a statement saying that you didn't |
| 26 |
steal the work, and you did steal the work, then they can go after you |
| 27 |
as well as Gentoo. That deters contributing stuff without checking on |
| 28 |
its legality. That same deterrence also helps show good faith on |
| 29 |
Gentoo's part. This is why organizations generally pursue these |
| 30 |
policies. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
If somebody violates a copyright anonymously, then they have no skin |
| 33 |
in the game. They can just disappear if anything bad happens. If a |
| 34 |
contributor isn't willing to stake their own money and reputation on |
| 35 |
the statement that something is legal to contribute, then why should |
| 36 |
Gentoo assume that they've put a lot of effort into the accuracy of |
| 37 |
that statement? |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Rich |
Archives