1 |
Daniel Ostrow wrote: [Tue Sep 20 2005, 09:26:14AM CDT] |
2 |
> The part that I am missing is what would be the downside. I have yet to |
3 |
> hear anything other then "I feel icky about assigning my copyright to |
4 |
> someone else." What is it that makes you feel icky? What do you fear |
5 |
> could happen under such circumstances? Once we have a clear cut |
6 |
> understanding on that the wording of the document can be changed to |
7 |
> allay those fears. Again there is nothing insidious about this |
8 |
> document...it can do people no harm. |
9 |
|
10 |
I think the arguments so far have been reasonably good. The reason I |
11 |
brought up the linux kernel, though, is because it should also suffer |
12 |
from all of the issues that you've raised, and yet the kernel folks |
13 |
don't seem to think it's a problem, and I don't understand why. In that |
14 |
case it has been the individual copyright holders who have initiated lawsuits, |
15 |
and one could argue that the Gentoo Foundation could fascilitate such |
16 |
suits on behalf of the original copyright holders. (Again, I'm looking |
17 |
for good counter-arguments here. For the most part, this stuff gives me |
18 |
a nasty headache.) |
19 |
|
20 |
As for what the downside would be, I don't really know, but I'm sure |
21 |
that there are devs who will object. Perhaps they have some quite valid |
22 |
downsides that we haven't considered. There's only 13 of us, after all. |
23 |
|
24 |
Once again, I'd like to urge that we move this discussion to a more |
25 |
public forum as soon as we can. I agree that there's nothing insidious |
26 |
here, but if we try to present a fait accompli then we're going to |
27 |
create something that appears insidious to many, regardless of whether |
28 |
or not it actually is. |
29 |
|
30 |
-g2boojum- |
31 |
-- |
32 |
Grant Goodyear |
33 |
Gentoo Developer |
34 |
g2boojum@g.o |
35 |
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum |
36 |
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 |