Gentoo Archives: gentoo-trustees

From: Deedra Waters <dmwaters@g.o>
To: gentoo-trustees@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-trustees] copyright assignment doc
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:21:07
Message-Id: Pine.LNX.4.56L0.0406291701260.23841@toucan.gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-trustees] copyright assignment doc by Kurt Lieber
1 I think that before we do anything to the copyright assignment, we need to 1, have current copyrights transfered over to us and that will take a bit of time, and 2, we need to have a lawyer look at our current copyright doc. When a lawyer looks at the current copyright doc, I think then we can ask him/her about copyrights outside the us, and if they're enforceable.
2
3 As for the changes in the cvs tree, I really think that we should have waited on those till we had the copyrights transfered to us. I think that change was made a bit quickly, especially since we don't own the copyrights yet:p
4
5
6 On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Kurt Lieber wrote:
7
8 > Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:13:16 +0000
9 > From: Kurt Lieber <klieber@g.o>
10 > Reply-To: gentoo-trustees@l.g.o
11 > To: gentoo-trustees@l.g.o
12 > Cc: gentoo-core@l.g.o
13 > Subject: [gentoo-trustees] copyright assignment doc
14 >
15 > I've mentioned this before but didn't receive much response, so I'll
16 > mention it again.
17 >
18 > Our copyright assignment doc needs to change. Specific problems with it:
19 >
20 > * It claims ownership of developer hard drives "...or computer media
21 > relating to the Work.")
22 > * It says "Gentoo Technologies" instead of "Gentoo Foundation"
23 > * It is completely unenforceable for any user (non-dev) that submits
24 > something to bugzilla and/or submissions@g.o. (we're not
25 > requiring them to sign this doc, so it's not enforceable)
26 > * Because we allow the storage things like kernel patches, etc. for which
27 > we do not own the copyright, in CVS (in the files/ directories), it shows
28 > that we're selectively enforcing the copyright assignment. In the past,
29 > this has often resulted in the entire document being tossed in court.
30 > * It is questionable whether or not we have any legal right to enforce
31 > copyright claims for non-US devs. They're not US citizens, so it's not
32 > clear if they're subject to US copyright restrictions/assignments.
33 > * We selectively enforce who must sign it.
34 > * [minor] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright/index.xml needs to
35 > be updated to remove Daniel from the text.
36 >
37 > There are a number of ways to solve this. One set of suggestions:
38 >
39 > * Eliminate the "...or computer media" clause.
40 > * s/Gentoo Technologies/Gentoo Foundation/g
41 > * Not sure, but it's something we need to resolve.
42 > * Some how find a way to allow storage of files/ files in CVS for which we
43 > cannot legally claim copyright on. I'm open to suggestions on how to
44 > best do this.
45 > * Seek legal counsel on the merit of this document wrt non-US-based devs.
46 > * Either have *everyone* sign it or *no one* sign it.
47 > * [minor] fix the copyright FAQ page.
48 >
49 > Until we change this doc, I would like to stop having new devs sign it. It
50 > is causing a number of problems, confusion and general unhappiness on
51 > #gentoo-dev. I don't think it provides a net benefit to Gentoo as it reads
52 > now, (for the reasons outlined above) so I don't see the reason for
53 > requiring it.
54 >
55 > Thoughts, opinions, flames, etc.
56 >
57 > --kurt
58 >
59 >
60
61 --
62 Gentoo Linux: dmwaters@g.o
63 http://www.gentoo.org
64
65 --
66 gentoo-trustees@g.o mailing list