Ühel kenal päeval, K, 26.10.2016 kell 14:58, kirjutas Kent Fredric: > On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:25:52 +0200 > Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > And I guess that even most ebuilds for new > > packages aren't written from scratch, but will be based on an > > existing > > ebuild or on some template like skel.ebuild. > > You could probably argue that subsequently, every ebuild is > essentially > a derived work of the first ebuild, and thus, a derived work of > Gentoo's copyright.
Please don't confuse copyright with licensing. They are completely different things. You don't get my copyright if I derive something on your work you allow me to with the license you've chosen for your copyrightable work. If you did, you could then relicense everything to a proprietary license, including my work. But you can't, because you don't have the copyright to the code I did, because I didn't reassign it and didn't give you a permission to do that (e.g by licensing my code under some BSD license or signing some sort of a copyright assignment or CLA). You might just reasonably assume I have licensed my code under the same license the whole codebase was in, and this is what should be explicitly known to be the case to be safer. With GPL (and other) licenses, copyright is what gives the power to enforce the license. Derivative work is related to the GPL license requirement, it has (imho) nothing to do with copyright beyond copyright law allowing to enforce the license (and copyright law basics being adopted by most of the world via the Berne Convention). > The format is so regularised 2 people could independently create the > same ebuild. These ebuilds are probably not copyrightable work in the first place. But it's hard to judge, so people tend to assume it is to be on the safe side. > Not because there's any real rules to how we order things, but > because > people take their advice at how to write ebuilds by copying other > existing ones. IANAL, Mart
