Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] GLEP 76: Copyright Policy [v4]

[kuzetsa]

On 09/27/2018 10:13 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 9:52 AM NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@g.o> wrote:
>>
>> But that's really besides the point... The current status quo (as is the
>> case with me) is that a committer may be pseudonymous under the
>> condition that the Foundation have that individual's name in the event
>> of a copyright issue. So, I still don't understand how forcing everyone
>> to publicly use a real name achieves something that we aren't currently
>> achieving...  Is that incorrect?
>
> Interesting point.
>
> If we were going to go down this road I'd still suggest that the
> Foundation have a policy on when the real names of contributors can be
> disclosed, either privately or publicly.  If we were to use the
> defense that we have a statement from a contributor that they checked
> the copyright and it was ok, the first question somebody will respond
> with is, "who?"  An answer of "we know who it is but can't tell
> anybody, even a court" probably isn't going to work.
>
> I think there are other arguments to be made against anonymity.
> You're hardly a list troll, but anonymity can breed this sort of
> thing.  From a strictly copyright standpoint I don't see why the
> identity of contributors needs to be publicly disclosed, as long as it
> can be disclosed where legally necessary.  Of course, if that is a
> court then depending on the jurisdiction it may become public anyway.
> Also, if we were going to go down this route then we also need to have
> better archives of such things, as trying to dig up some trustee email
> from 10 years ago is not the right solution.  A secured repository of
> identities/etc would be better (the Foundation already has a place to
> store stuff like bank account details).
>
> Another practical argument against anonymity.  If everybody agrees
> everything is public, then we don't have any personal information we
> need to protect under various privacy laws.  As soon as we agree to
> keep some info private, then we potentially have obligations under
> such laws.  Also, legally the Foundation is a US organization - so I'm
> not sure if things like the US-EU Safe Harbor provisions start to
> apply if we want to collect this sort of info from EU citizens.  It is
> just a can of worms you can avoid simply by not hanging onto this kind
> of information.  I believe that many of these privacy protections
> cannot be simply waived - we can't get some EU citizen to agree that
> they don't apply to us.  If the laws apply then we need to follow
> them.  Now, we're obviously not a big fish, so enforcement may never
> happen.  Maybe compliance isn't burdensome - I only know enough about
> such things to know that I'd want to know more before going down that
> road...
>

which is worse? the hassle of tracking some personal metadata in a way
which is legally compliant, or admitting that gentoo didn't bother
collecting it and then allowed itself to facilitate legal injuries on
other parties - gentoo could be liable for that too.

if someone opts-in to submitting legal documentation as an acceptable
condition for affirming a name, that could make things easier for some
LGBTQ people, or persons who don't feel like using a female-coded name,
or any other personal attachment to a certain name. not sure how heavily
to weigh my own bias VS the value of inclusiveness & the optics for
gentoo's image, the spirit of the social contract (things like having a
choice), and all those other factors which never came up in 2006 when
the DCO first got its "real name" policy.

-