Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: copyright attribution clarifications

[Sarah White]

On 11/24/18 8:37 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 8:09 PM Sarah White <kuzetsa@××××××××××.ovh> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/24/18 6:11 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't see anything in the GPL-2 that would prevent us from removing
>>> redundant copyright notices.
>>>
>>
>> The better question - why should things be copyrighted,
>> and then made available under a FOSS/Libre license, and
>> why is this different than public domain without any
>> copyright protection of any kind?
>

{...}

>
>> I believe if sony is committing to release something under
>> a FOSS/Libre/copyleft-type license, they should be able
>> to thow their own legal team behind it.
>
> And they can with the GLEP as it exists now.  They receive no legal
> benefits at all by being named in the copyright notice, and lose no
> benefits by not being named in the notice, as long as the notice is
> valid.
>

Perhaps just a misunderstanding then.

So if it isn't meant to say that gentoo will be looking
after the legal aspects of a FOSS/Libre-copyleft licensed
package or document or tool, then what's the purpose to
put gentoo's name on it?

There's some innuendo and/or implication that copyright
holders who have their own name listed in a copyright
notice are intending to do something other than participate
in FOSS/Libre work, or perhaps may not truly wish to
contribute in good faith.

I really hope that's a misunderstanding, and discussing
further can clarify. Does gentoo have a legitimate reason
to substitute a gentoo copyright notice in place of an
otherwise valid notice?

Is there an intent to create a sort of gatekeeper role
within the gentoo organization to request documentation
if a contributor uses a non-gentoo copyright notice?

-- kuza