Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-project <gentoo-project@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] GLEP 76: Copyright Policy
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2018 02:34:41
Message-Id: CAGfcS_n9NMpgM9eSP8U0-Nao_chwan8_WdQp9R=PFYKSuewfLQ@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] [RFC] GLEP 76: Copyright Policy by Kent Fredric
1 On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 10:14 PM Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o> wrote:
2 >
3 > Surely then, the most effective and usefully correct copyright notice
4 > (for portage trees at least), would be:
5 >
6 > "Copyright Gentoo Foundation and Contributors"
7 >
8 > Or similar, instead of abandoning the Gentoo Foundation Copyright and using
9 > a random persons name?
10
11 Sure, and that is what the policy proposes (except "and others"
12 instead of "and Contributors"), at least for existing stuff that has
13 the Foundation headers. For new stuff it would be the name of the
14 main copyright holder.
15
16 > If the objective is to simply denote the file has a copyright, that
17 > format should do the job.
18
19 Sure. It just isn't appropriate for things that the Foundation
20 doesn't hold copyright on, and it caused quite a stir when a large
21 number of notices were stripped from files and replaced with the
22 Foundation, hence the policy.
23
24 > ( Additionally, I have no opposition to generating a package-wide
25 > file that notates contributors, such an approach is routinely
26 > satisfactory for debian with regards to marking up which files have
27 > which licenses without needing to inject the license in the file, and
28 > has the benefit of exposing that metadata to consumers who only access
29 > via rsync or tarballs, its just in-band in-git data that I find most
30 > obnoxious due to being functionally redundant )
31
32 The original policy suggested something like this. IMO git is a lot
33 simpler. I don't see the point in duplicating git info just for the
34 benefit of people who can't be bothered to look at it.
35
36 --
37 Rich