Re: [gentoo-project] New gentoo-licenses mailing list

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
> So far most license discussions took place on the licenses@g.o alias
> which makes it impossible to trace many license related decisions.
> This isn't in line with the Social Contract which says that "we will
> not hide problems".
> We have therefore created a new gentoo-licenses mailing list for
> discussion of packages' licenses and related issues. (Thanks to the
> Infra team for setting it up.)

So, I 100% support the concept here.  However, there is one potential
wrinkle I can think of here, and I'd be interested in how other
distros like Debian handle it.

We're incorporated in the US, which is fairly well-renown for its
"strong" IP stance and litigious culture.  That actually can be a
benefit to us since Gentoo is largely an IP-holding organization so
holding the IP in a venue where we can actually do something about
violations makes sense (which isn't to say there isn't benefit to
being incorporated elsewhere).  However, it is also a two-edged sword
since accusations of infringement against us can cost us dearly in
time and money.

Is openly discussing a purported licensing problem something that
could be considered an admission of guilt in a court of law,
especially if officers, trustees, council members, or project leads
(who might be construed as officially speaking for Gentoo) are
involved in the conversation?  I believe that lkml bans talk of
patents for just this sort of reason.

As I said, I'd be interested in the stance other distros take on this.

Now, I don't want the solution to be "hiding problems" or not being
open to broader participation.  Maybe we just need ground rules like
being careful not to make statements like "Gentoo is breaking the law"
or "we are violating this license" and so on.  It would be better to
say that "we MIGHT be in violation of a license" or "somebody claims
we are in violation of their license" or something like that.  I'd
also suggest that if anybody from Gentoo is actually contacted by a
copyright-holder or a lawyer about a purported violation that this
first go straight to the trustees so that they can see legal council
before we engage in open discussion that might be more likely to end
up being cited in court as evidence that we did or didn't handle a
situation appropriately.

After all, the only body that can actually say with certainty that
Gentoo is or isn't breaking a law is an actual court.  Anything else
is just opinion and speculation.  We should be clear that discussion
really is just healthy debate and speculation, and in no way
represents any kind of actionable determination on its own.  This is
why lawyers love words like "allegedly" or "purportedly" and so on -
claims are just claims, and we can talk about them without endorsing
them.

Bottom line is that I'd especially encourage anybody who is in a role
like an officer/trustee to just be careful about the language we use.
Sometimes I've seen in private conversation statements like "we're
technically violating the law" and such - I understand the spirit (we
DO want to follow the law), but statements like this said with the
best of intentions can end up being used against us.  We can just as
seriously consider the matter while saying things like "it is possible
that a court might think that this is in violation of the law" and
being clear that our speculation/opinion is just that.

Just my two cents.  I do fully support making this more open to the community.

Rich