| 1 |
On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 11:49 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: |
| 2 |
> > From: Seemant Kulleen <seemant@g.o> |
| 3 |
> > How does this agreement play to things like that? If eselect goes on |
| 4 |
> > (and based on its technical merits, there is every reason that it |
| 5 |
> > should) to become the default tool in gentoo, then where does that leave |
| 6 |
> > us? I'm with Grant on this: I'm not convinced. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Unsurprisingly, eselect was exactly what I was thinking about when I |
| 9 |
> raised that question. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The other thing is that only code written after the agreement is signed |
| 12 |
is covered. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
This would mean that if eselect were to become and official project and |
| 15 |
it was decided that all official projects needed to have the protection |
| 16 |
of the foundation that any code written from that point forward would be |
| 17 |
covered under the agreement, not the code that came before. For a |
| 18 |
project as robust as eselect that would mean that until a fair few |
| 19 |
revisions happened most of the code would only be copyrighted to the |
| 20 |
original authors. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I also believe that it should be up to the individual project whether |
| 23 |
they want to have their code protected. However, it is, (and I feel like |
| 24 |
a broken record here) an all or nothing deal for that project. Having |
| 25 |
only a few members of a project sign is futile. I'm just saying that I |
| 26 |
feel that copyright protection and official status should go hand in |
| 27 |
hand. I have no problem with the code being hosted on our infra, I do |
| 28 |
have a problem marking the code as official Gentoo code and having no |
| 29 |
way to protect it. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Daniel Ostrow |
| 33 |
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees |
| 34 |
Gentoo/{PPC,PPC64,DevRel} |
| 35 |
dostrow@g.o |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-trustees@g.o mailing list |
Archives