Duncan wrote: > Thus the questions of whether many/most individual ebuilds /could/ be > copyrighted or if so whether it's worth doing so. Certainly, it's the > tree that contains the license, not the individual ebuilds, etc, which > give the copyright statement but little more. Gentoo policy would seem > to be, then, that it's the work of the tree as a whole that's > copyrighted. Individual ebuilds may or may not be, and it's /implied/ > (which isn't necessarily legally binding) that if they are, there'd be > little attempt at enforcement unless a significant portion of the tree > was copied/modified. > > Of course, there's also the question of whether an individual ebuild is > all that useful in practice, without the rest of the supporting tree > structure (not necessarily the individual applications including those > developed by Gentoo such as portage, the tree). Certainly without the > eclasses, many ebuilds would be in practice almost worthless. > > So the copyright is on the tree. Note that actual Gentoo apps such as > portage, catalyst, etc, are copyrighted individually. The Gentoo policy > /does/ state that apps are GPL2ed AFAIK, as is the tree. Then there's > documentation, which is not GPLed but generally CC-AT-SA (Attribution > Share-alike). > Hmm I agree that the ebuilds are useless without the eclasses, but imo every ebuild is still copyrighted. (Ie `Individual ebuilds may or may not be' seems untrue to me.) The practical consequences you outline seem accurate, in that someone copying a single ebuild is unlikely to be sued. And OFC this would only be an issue where the derived work is NOT released under the GPL.
> Apart from the more specifically enumerated patent protections and wider > compatibility of GPL3, which might be worthy shooting for, I don't think > the anti-tivoization clauses are much that Gentoo needs to worry about > for the tree (possibly for some of the apps) anyway. > Well I guess the concern would be if a Gentoo-based system were running on such hardware. GPL3 would mean that was impractical, which aiui is the point of the clause- to stop Free software being used in a manner that restricts users' rights. IMO though, Gentoo is effectively already under GPL3 in that, apart from portage and python, all the core software is GNU. It'd be pretty difficult for instance, to run any ebuild without BASH. > There's also the hassle of changing. Many contributors could argue that > they contributed under the statement that it'd be GPL2, period. How that > might turn out is anyone's guess, but I just don't see that there's any > benefit in moving the tree to GPLv3, with the possible exception of > patent protections and I don't believe they are likely to be worth the > switch on their own. Thus, for the tree as a copyrightable work, I just > don't see it being worth even attempting to change. > AIUI it doesn't really matter how past contributors feel (legally-speaking) in that they explicitly gave copyright to Gentoo. It's understood when you commit an ebuild (and indeed the notice is right in front of you.) So this is not the same as retaining copyright and releasing under GPLv2 only, where your consent would be required for a switch to GPLv3. Personally speaking, anything I have contributed to Gentoo (minor stuff ofc) I did to give something back to Gentoo. If Gentoo as a whole decides to use it in whatever way, that's fine by me (and since I explicitly gave up copyright to Gentoo, it couldn't matter anyhow.) As for patent protection I see it more as projects all supporting each other so that if you want to work with Free software you agree you're not going to sue each other. This establishes a safe environment as opposed to the current situation wherein a company can benefit from others' GPL2 work, and yet still sue them under patent laws. The hassle of showing that patents already granted are obvious or duplicating prior art, is one that Free software cannot afford. OFC a judge may still decide GPL3 work breaches a patent. The point is that it's a lot harder to sue the whole community, especially as there is so much software already written. And by using GPL3, companies actually get *more assurance* than currently. So it's applying the core principles to patents, that we already benefit from with copyright. > Again, I'm generally pro-GPLv3 switch, but an optimistic realist as > well. If a generally pro-GPLv3 guy doesn't see it as worth switching the > tree, I don't believe it's going to happen, period, because there are > certainly those that are more adamantly GPLv2 only than I am GPLv3 only, > and they have the present situation on their side. > Yeah, well as i see it it's up to the Foundation, which means all the devs. And if, as you say, many are anti-GPL3, it's just not going to happen. But that's all that's required: imo there are no legal obstacles to switching. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
