| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Sven Vermeulen wrote: |
| 5 |
> I still feel that a copyright assignment is the best option if we can not |
| 6 |
> have the copyright available for both parties (i.e. both the developer /and/ |
| 7 |
> the foundation can take action against copyright violations). Having dual |
| 8 |
> copyrights is more troublesome than full copyright assignment, since full |
| 9 |
> copyright assignment is probably listed in all relevant laws (Copyright Act |
| 10 |
> in the USA, Auteursrecht in Belgium, etc.) while dual copyright is more |
| 11 |
> something exotic. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Another possibility is an exclusive license. With an exclusive license, the |
| 14 |
> Foundation can protect the code (take appropriate measures, ...) while the |
| 15 |
> original author still retains the copyright. The drawback is that the |
| 16 |
> original author can not use the code beyond what the Foundation and the |
| 17 |
> contract (= the license) sais ("exclusive" license). |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
How about this: By default, everybody signs off to one of the above. |
| 20 |
Strong objectioners have the option of signing a nonexclusive license |
| 21 |
instead. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Thanks, |
| 24 |
Donnie |
| 25 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 26 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
iD8DBQFCwK6hXVaO67S1rtsRAuPLAJ0dEHApkA5kRjnfBrMhEM7XQulu5ACfdLED |
| 29 |
RjIK0rgPDUKHjhbJ49sWw7c= |
| 30 |
=e0lP |
| 31 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-trustees@g.o mailing list |
Archives