| 1 |
> > For all those who don't want to sign something because they feel that it |
| 2 |
> > is against the spirit of free software they don;t understand what is |
| 3 |
> > actually at stake. We are becoming more popular by the day and |
| 4 |
> > eventually we may have to defend something that is rightfully ours. As |
| 5 |
> > it stands we are on VERY soft ground if it were to happen tomorrow. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> If _what_ were to happen tomorrow? Some at least semi-realistic |
| 8 |
> scenarios would be helpful here. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
In the world of free software all that can be done to truly breach a |
| 11 |
copyright is to reuse code under a different copyright (excluding the |
| 12 |
original) or a different license. With an agreement we could prevent |
| 13 |
both of these. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
This is especially important when it comes to re-use in commercial |
| 16 |
software. As the copyright holder it would be our responsibility to tell |
| 17 |
XYZ Corp. that they have to release their proprietary package manager |
| 18 |
under the GPL and give credit via the original copyright if we found |
| 19 |
that they were using sections of portage code in said package manager or |
| 20 |
remove our code from their product. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
In the domain of free-software all it enforces is that the foundation |
| 23 |
would have the right to enforce a change of license, or deny it's use if |
| 24 |
outside the bounds of its license. Lets say someone release derivative |
| 25 |
code of genkernel under the MIT license, we would have the legal |
| 26 |
authority to force the party to change it to the GPL or remove the |
| 27 |
code. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
These all may seem like far fetched things but they do happen in the |
| 30 |
software world. When it comes right down to it we can't EVER protect |
| 31 |
anything that we don't have either a copyright or a license for. |
| 32 |
Personally I wouldn't like to see XYZ Corp. making money off of our |
| 33 |
portage team, and I wouldn't like to see code from genkernel distributed |
| 34 |
under a different license without credit given to the original authoring |
| 35 |
bodies. Without the agreement we can prevent neither. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> Also, is that sort of copyright agreement something that we can actually |
| 38 |
> enforce? What keeps a dev from starting up a project on berlios, for |
| 39 |
> example, with a group of other people who may or may not be devs, |
| 40 |
> writing a replacement for portage or genkernel or such, and then because |
| 41 |
> it's a particularly well-written piece of software having it be the |
| 42 |
> default special-magic-widget in Gentoo? |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
This isn't the point. We aren't saying that they automated kernel |
| 45 |
building utility used by Gentoo is and can only be genkernel. We are |
| 46 |
saying that as long as genkernel is around we want to be able to make |
| 47 |
sure we have some control of its (and it's derivative works) usage and |
| 48 |
license. Anyone is free to come up with a bigger better badder |
| 49 |
portage/genkernel/whathaveyou (and we are free to use it) so long as it |
| 50 |
doesn't contain derivative works or if it does that it follows the |
| 51 |
letter of the appropriate license. |
| 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 |
All I'm saying is that a good portion of our duties as the Board of |
| 57 |
Trustees, specifically the protection of the intellectual property of |
| 58 |
The Gentoo Project, can't be carried out if there is no intellectual |
| 59 |
property. Without the agreement NONE of the code can be protected by the |
| 60 |
foundation that duty would have to fall to the authors of the work, and |
| 61 |
by and large in order to have an effective suit in court every author |
| 62 |
who's work was contained in the software in question would have to be |
| 63 |
present for the suit to be valid. Part of the whole point is to |
| 64 |
consolidate the copyright so that one body can protect it instead of |
| 65 |
many non-exclusive bodies. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
Not speaking for the open-source community but most corporations require |
| 68 |
this to prevent piracy...it's the same thing in the open-source |
| 69 |
world...even though the software is "free" it can still be pirated. |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
Sure we still have the trademark over the name and the artwork, but |
| 72 |
without having lawful co-control over the central code of what makes |
| 73 |
Gentoo Gentoo then why even bother with that. |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
--Dan |
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
-- |
| 78 |
gentoo-trustees@g.o mailing list |
Archives