| 1 |
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 11:18 PM Sarah White <kuzetsa@××××××××××.ovh> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 11/13/2018 09:46 PM, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 06:17:17PM -0800, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 10:32 AM William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> >>> |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> multiline (standard form) copyright attribution doesn't have anything to |
| 9 |
> do with licensing, and only serves to strengthen copyleft due to the |
| 10 |
> presence of additional copyright notices which clearly lay out a list of |
| 11 |
> entities / people with a stake in protecting the interests of an |
| 12 |
> opensource project remaining FOSS/Libre. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
First, git already does this. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Second, please cite an example of a copyright lawsuit that was won |
| 17 |
because multiple notices were listed, or a law that provides |
| 18 |
protection if multiple notices are provided. Your claim that doing |
| 19 |
this "strengthen[s] copyleft" is baseless as far as I can tell. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The presence of any copyright notice in the form given in US law |
| 22 |
already defeats the innocent infringement defense, even if it doesn't |
| 23 |
mention you. Beyond that copyright law applies whether there is any |
| 24 |
notice at all. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> gentoo's license policy already |
| 27 |
> requires FOSS/Libre licenses and correctly using copyright law for |
| 28 |
> copyleft purposes makes everything work correctly when it's used correctly. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Indeed, and for this reason I don't actually see any reason under US |
| 31 |
copyright law that we couldn't strip out additional copyright notices |
| 32 |
in code as a result. US law explicitly makes this illegal only if it |
| 33 |
is done to hide infringement, and we don't infringe copyright. I can |
| 34 |
only imagine the wails of the copyright pro-spam crowd if we actually |
| 35 |
tried that (not that I'm suggesting it)... |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Rich |
Archives