Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Raymond Jennings <shentino@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: copyright attribution clarifications
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 08:29:11
Message-Id: CAGDaZ_oEgAUTC1r-Wy=Sz9HvVwUASNHEu7xGN+K=cUvEO1tOYw@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] rfc: copyright attribution clarifications by Ulrich Mueller
1 On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 12:24 AM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
2
3 > >>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2018, William Hubbs wrote:
4 >
5 > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 06:17:17PM -0800, Rich Freeman wrote:
6 > >> So, the purpose of allowing specific copyright holders to be named
7 > >> was to cover cases where we're forking foreign code, not to basically
8 > >> introduce a variant on the BSD advertising clause. IMO people who are
9 > >> only willing to contribute FOSS if their name gets put in a prominent
10 > >> location might do better to contribute elsewhere.
11 >
12 > +1000
13 >
14 > Maybe the policy for the Gentoo repository should just say that, namely
15 > that traditional copyright notices are only allowed for imported foreign
16 > code. Anything committed directly to the repository and any update of an
17 > existing file would be required to carry the simplified "Gentoo Authors"
18 > copyright notice, without any exceptions allowed.
19 >
20 > Can someone come up with a good wording for this?
21
22
23 In my opinion the best wording belongs in python as a check in repoman and
24 the qa scripts monitoring PRs on github ;).
25
26
27 > > Do you feel this way about corporations as well? Do you think the
28 > > Linux kernel maintainers should go and rip out all copyright notices
29 > > other than Linus Torvalds and maybe the Linux Foundation?
30 >
31 > Why would corporations be different from individual authors? Under the
32 > legislation here, corporations cannot even hold copyright (or rather,
33 > Urheberrecht) of a work.
34 >
35 > >> The purpose of a copyright notice is to declare that the file is
36 > >> copyrighted, and that is it.
37 >
38 > Exactly.
39 >
40 > >> It isn't a comprehensive list of everybody who holds a copyright on
41 > >> the file.
42 > >>
43 > >> It isn't a revision history.
44 > >>
45 > >> There is no need to list various mixes of years and authors. Just
46 > >> list the first and last year, and whatever copyright holders are
47 > >> necessary.
48 > >>
49 > >> [...]
50 > >>
51 > >> But, if you had to have multiple lines, then just wrap the existing
52 > >> notice. Don't turn it into some kind of revision history. Just list
53 > >> one year range and whatever list of entities you feel compelled to
54 > >> list. That is the proper way to do a notice.
55 >
56 > > No sir, it isn't.
57 >
58 > > Look anywhere outside the Gentoo tree. For that matter, take the Linux
59 > > kernel, or even in the systemd source, there are several places with
60 > > multiple copyright notices in them.
61 >
62 > Are these the only arguments you have?
63 >
64 > To say it again, ebuilds have a copyright notice for exactly two
65 > reasons:
66 >
67 > - to protect us against the "innocent infringement" defense under
68 > U.S. law, and
69 >
70 > - because the GPL-2 requires in section 1 to "appropriately publish
71 > on each copy an appropriate copyright notice".
72 >
73 > For both of these, it is irrelevant what the precise contents of the
74 > notice is. If you made a significant contribution to the file, then you
75 > can claim copyright for it, even if there is no copyright notice at all,
76 > of if you aren't mentioned in it.
77 >
78 > IANAL, but I think the case for being listed there explicitly is very
79 > weak.
80 >
81 > Ulrich
82 >