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 |
> |