Ryan Hill wrote: > Marius Mauch wrote: >> While I think this would be an excellent move, there are a few topics >> that concern me a bit: >> 1) just to be sure, did someone check the transfer agreement between the >> Foundation and the old Gentoo, Inc for potential problems? >> 2) what would this mean for our copyright situation? In detail: >> a) who would (legally) own the copyright? >> b) what would (in theory) be involved if we'd want to enforce/change >> the license? >> c) if the copyright were owned by the Conservancy, would we have to >> change our copyright headers (in existing and/or new files)? > > It might be worth noting that it appears that Gentoo would be the first > distribution to join. I'd be interested in knowing if the SFC considers > distributing closed-source or proprietary software (nero, ati/nvidia > drivers, vmware) to be "producing non-free software (as per the > Conservancy's charitable purpose)" as mentioned in section 2(b) of their > notes. Paragraph 2(a) seems to prohibit it. > >> a. The Project Will Be Free Software. The Conservancy and the Project agree >> that >> any software distributed by the Project will be distributed solely as >> Free Software. > > If that's not a problem I think this is a great idea.
We don't "distribute" those, do we? A look at their ebuilds shows that those are just downloaded from upstream, not from Gentoo mirrors. Well, except for Nero. At least we aren't the creators of it! Does that document you mention define what "Free Software" is? nvidia drivers are free to download, install, use, in the sense that they don't cost anything. Bah, legal hassle!
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
