| 1 |
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 18:17:17 -0800 Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 10:32 AM William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > Since we do not do copyright assignment any more and the glep allows for |
| 5 |
> > traditional attribution, if some entity |
| 6 |
> > (company, person etc) has a desire for a copyright notice in |
| 7 |
> > their work, the case for not allowing this is very weak at best, so we will |
| 8 |
> > end up with more and more ebuilds that want to use traditional copyright |
| 9 |
> > attribution, and once an ebuild is switched over, it is problematic to |
| 10 |
> > switch back. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> So, the purpose of allowing specific copyright holders to be named was |
| 13 |
> to cover cases where we're forking foreign code, not to basically |
| 14 |
> introduce a variant on the BSD advertising clause. IMO people who are |
| 15 |
> only willing to contribute FOSS if their name gets put in a prominent |
| 16 |
> location might do better to contribute elsewhere. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
What's the main problem of most FOSS including Gentoo? Lack of |
| 19 |
human power. And here you propose to neglect contributions if they |
| 20 |
want a proper and legal and allowed by GPL attribution. This is |
| 21 |
absurd. A few extra lines in the header doesn't as much as |
| 22 |
inability to import GPL ebuilds to the tree due to our |
| 23 |
questionable copyright line policy. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> But, if you had to have multiple lines, then just wrap the existing |
| 26 |
> notice. Don't turn it into some kind of revision history. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
That's what most FOSS software does. I see no reason why we should |
| 29 |
be different. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
IMO the best solution will be to recommend "Gentoo Authors" |
| 32 |
attribution, but to allow additional copyright lines including the |
| 33 |
case where "Gentoo Authors" is one of such lines. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Best regards, |
| 36 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives