1 |
Daniel Ostrow wrote: [Mon Sep 19 2005, 01:00:29PM CDT] |
2 |
> On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 12:44 -0500, Deedra Waters wrote: |
3 |
> > I'd like to try and keep things moving on this issue. So far, I've only |
4 |
> > seen swift, corey, and dostrow's comments on this. Any other feedback on |
5 |
> > this would be greatly appreciated. I'd like to see this done with by the |
6 |
> > end of this year, and i think it's taken long enough. So, my question |
7 |
> > is, should we go with this? If so, how do we pitch this to the devs? |
8 |
> > Reguardless of what we decide on, we're going to get oposision to this. |
9 |
|
10 |
Of course we will, but the best way to minimize that opposition is to |
11 |
have the devs involved. My personal feeling is that I'm not |
12 |
particularly opposed to it, but I'm also not entirely convinced that |
13 |
it's necessary. I've yet to see anything that convinces me that Gentoo |
14 |
needs something stronger than the model that the Linux kernel is using. |
15 |
(Similarly, anybody know how the *BSDs handle copyright transfer, if at |
16 |
all?) I'm willing to be convinced, but I haven't been yet. Perhaps |
17 |
part of the problem is that I have a hard time coming up with evil |
18 |
things that people could do that could cause serious harm to Gentoo |
19 |
where copyrighted code is concerned. |
20 |
|
21 |
In any event, my feeling is that the best solution for swaying devs is |
22 |
to explain what the various options are, and why we feel that this one |
23 |
is the best option, and then listen to comments. |
24 |
|
25 |
> As far as I'm concerned opposition is 100% irrelevant. The job of the |
26 |
> foundation is to protect the intellectual property of the Gentoo |
27 |
> Project, the only way we can do this is to hold a copyright or joint |
28 |
> royalty-free license on all pertinent works. We need to push this |
29 |
> through ASAP. The text of the document addresses every concern except |
30 |
> for the "I'm a minor and I can't sign it and my parents don't want to." |
31 |
> concern. |
32 |
|
33 |
Here I strongly disagree. If this copyright agreement is so important, |
34 |
then we should be able to convince our devs of that fact, instead of |
35 |
trying to "push it through". |
36 |
|
37 |
> For all those who don't want to sign something because they feel that it |
38 |
> is against the spirit of free software they don;t understand what is |
39 |
> actually at stake. We are becoming more popular by the day and |
40 |
> eventually we may have to defend something that is rightfully ours. As |
41 |
> it stands we are on VERY soft ground if it were to happen tomorrow. |
42 |
|
43 |
If _what_ were to happen tomorrow? Some at least semi-realistic |
44 |
scenarios would be helpful here. |
45 |
|
46 |
Also, is that sort of copyright agreement something that we can actually |
47 |
enforce? What keeps a dev from starting up a project on berlios, for |
48 |
example, with a group of other people who may or may not be devs, |
49 |
writing a replacement for portage or genkernel or such, and then because |
50 |
it's a particularly well-written piece of software having it be the |
51 |
default special-magic-widget in Gentoo? |
52 |
|
53 |
I don't mean to sound negative. I just assume that if I'm not yet |
54 |
convinced entirely, then our devs might not be either. |
55 |
|
56 |
-g2boojum- |
57 |
-- |
58 |
Grant Goodyear |
59 |
Gentoo Developer |
60 |
g2boojum@g.o |
61 |
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum |
62 |
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 |