1 |
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 3:53 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
>> Since this is a copy of Gentoo ebuilds this is demonstrably wrong, the |
4 |
>> copyrights on the files themselves are intact. Copyright is obviously |
5 |
>> Gentoo Foundation, and license is GPL-2. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Thanks for noticing this. Quoting the GPL-2: |
8 |
> |
9 |
> 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program |
10 |
> except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt |
11 |
> otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is |
12 |
> void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Does this apply here? It would mean that Google's rights to distribute |
15 |
> the Portage tree have been terminated. |
16 |
|
17 |
I'd probably talk to a lawyer before celebrating the death of Google. |
18 |
|
19 |
All the copyright notices in the files are intact. As far as I can |
20 |
tell Google hasn't done anything that actually violates the GPL. The |
21 |
only complaint here is that there is a readme file with a different |
22 |
copyright notice inside. The issue is trivially correctable by Google |
23 |
by simply fixing the notice, or clarifying what it applies to. No |
24 |
court is going to prefer permanently terminating Google's rights to |
25 |
distribute ChromeOS over simply letting them clean things up. |
26 |
|
27 |
Besides, is the goal of Gentoo really to kill off the #1 used open |
28 |
source desktop OS in the world which is based on Gentoo? That hardly |
29 |
sounds like "Gentoo lives for the community, by the community" as |
30 |
stated in the Foundation's charter. The purpose of our copyrights is |
31 |
to preserve Gentoo so that all can benefit from it, not to club people |
32 |
over the head with if they dare to actually use Gentoo and make a |
33 |
mistake. |
34 |
|
35 |
Honestly, I'm a bit concerned by some of the talk in this thread. |
36 |
What kind of message to we want to send to companies or organizations |
37 |
that use Gentoo? Do we really want the message to be "better not slip |
38 |
up, because Gentoo is the kind of group that will get your site taken |
39 |
down on a weekend over a readme file?" Don't get me wrong - I think |
40 |
Google has benefitted a great deal from Gentoo and I'd love to see |
41 |
they contribute back more actively than they already do (we do have |
42 |
people doing 10% time work for Gentoo and we have benefitted from past |
43 |
GSoC). |
44 |
|
45 |
How would we want to be treated in the reverse situation? I was |
46 |
annoyed when it seemed like everybody was over-reacting over the eudev |
47 |
copyright notice fiasco. Copyright is complicated, and most people |
48 |
working on software are not lawyers, and since there isn't a ton of |
49 |
open source case law even the lawyers can disagree on where the lines |
50 |
are. When somebody infringes on your copyright the solution is to |
51 |
work with them to fix things, so that the scope of open source |
52 |
software is increased and the public benefits, not to act like the |
53 |
RIAA. Since we are an open community, we make our mistakes in the |
54 |
public light - we should afford the same leniency to others since we |
55 |
WANT others to act as open communities as well. |
56 |
|
57 |
I'm sure if we ask Google nicely to clean things up they will. That |
58 |
is the best outcome for the general public, and the best outcome for |
59 |
Gentoo. Remember, we can borrow their code as well, and some of our |
60 |
devs do just that. If we have trouble getting through to them the |
61 |
legal issues would allow us to escalate things, but that can be done |
62 |
in a way that creates opportunities ("hey, while we have you on the |
63 |
phone, did you realize how much you benefit from Gentoo, and are there |
64 |
ways we can better partner to improve things for all of our users?"). |
65 |
Why make enemies when we can make friends? |
66 |
|
67 |
-- |
68 |
Rich |