1 |
On Wednesday 30 June 2004 02:44, Aron Griffis wrote: |
2 |
> Kurt Lieber wrote: [Tue Jun 29 2004, 02:13:16PM EDT] |
3 |
> |
4 |
> > * It claims ownership of developer hard drives "...or computer media |
5 |
> > relating to the Work.") |
6 |
> > * It says "Gentoo Technologies" instead of "Gentoo Foundation" |
7 |
> > * It is completely unenforceable for any user (non-dev) that submits |
8 |
> > something to bugzilla and/or submissions@g.o. (we're not |
9 |
> > requiring them to sign this doc, so it's not enforceable) |
10 |
> |
11 |
> We just need some integration with bugzilla, and get rid of |
12 |
> submissions@g.o. The integration with bugzilla should include |
13 |
> a notice on the page when making an attachment that the submitter is |
14 |
> assigning coprights over to Gentoo. |
15 |
|
16 |
Alternatively we could have people agree when they create a bugzilla account |
17 |
(with transition) |
18 |
|
19 |
> |
20 |
> I don't know how to do this otherwise. When somebody submits an |
21 |
> ebuild, we can't have them getting upset at Gentoo and claiming we ran |
22 |
> off with their stuff. Also we don't want them licensing ebuilds to |
23 |
> us... we really want to own the copyright on stuff in th tree so that |
24 |
> we have future rights. |
25 |
|
26 |
Luckilly many contributions through bugzilla, simple patches or plain |
27 |
derivations of skel.ebuild (just filling in the package specific sourcefile |
28 |
and website) do not qualify for copyright at all due to their unoriginal |
29 |
nature (at least in EU law). |
30 |
|
31 |
> |
32 |
> > * Because we allow the storage things like kernel patches, etc. for which |
33 |
> > we do not own the copyright, in CVS (in the files/ directories), it |
34 |
> > shows that we're selectively enforcing the copyright assignment. In the |
35 |
> > past, this has often resulted in the entire document being tossed in |
36 |
> > court. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> Gonna have to talk to a lawyer about that one. |
39 |
> |
40 |
|
41 |
We need to have a lawyer with an understanding of software have a look at it. |
42 |
Daniel's lawyer had similar errors in the artwork licensing stuff. |
43 |
|
44 |
|
45 |
> > * It is questionable whether or not we have any legal right to enforce |
46 |
> > copyright claims for non-US devs. They're not US citizens, so it's not |
47 |
> > clear if they're subject to US copyright restrictions/assignments. |
48 |
> |
49 |
> Well, that doesn't change the fact that we should attempt to get |
50 |
> copyright assignment even from non-U.S. devs. *shrug* |
51 |
> |
52 |
|
53 |
In most cases we should be ok. The biggest issue is probably with underaged |
54 |
developers who are not allowed to sign themselves. Law in general is |
55 |
transparent in these issues. If there is a particular part that is not |
56 |
possible in the laws of the developer's country only those parts are |
57 |
disallowed. In EU law the only thing that can not be transferred is the right |
58 |
to be recognized as the author. That should not be an issue in any case. |
59 |
|
60 |
> > * We selectively enforce who must sign it. |
61 |
> |
62 |
> No comment. |
63 |
|
64 |
certainly. |
65 |
> |
66 |
> > * [minor] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright/index.xml needs |
67 |
> > to be updated to remove Daniel from the text. |
68 |
> |
69 |
> Right. |
70 |
> |
71 |
> I think Deedra had a good point. There's only so much we can do to |
72 |
> make this thing foolproof without the help of a lawyer. Following the |
73 |
> touch ups that we can make, that's probably the best route. (Raises |
74 |
> the question: how do we *pay* lawyer fees?) |
75 |
|
76 |
Maybe we could ask the FSF for advice. |
77 |
|
78 |
Paul |
79 |
|
80 |
-- |
81 |
Paul de Vrieze |
82 |
Gentoo Developer |
83 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
84 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |