Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

[Raymond Jennings]

+1 for at least having this discussed out in the open.

The issue of copyright did tickle my mind when I saw the headers during my
dev quiz.

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Rich Freeman  wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Matt Turner  wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Rich Freeman  wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Matt Turner 
> wrote:
> >>> In order to contribute to GNU projects, one must sign a copyright
> >>> assignment statement.
> >>>
> >>> Gentoo doesn't have anything similar as far as I'm aware, which makes
> >>> me question the legitimacy of "Gentoo Foundation" copyrights.
> >>>
> >>> What is the story?
> >>>
> >>
> >> The story of what?
> >>
> >> Are you asking whether they're legally binding?  You'd have to sue
> >> somebody to find out, because as far as I'm aware the matter is
> >> untested in court.  I think you could make an argument that
> >> voluntarily placing that header on your work is an assignment of
> >> copyright.  You could also argue otherwise.  A court would decide who
> >> wins.
> >
> > I'm asking whether we're just cargo-culting it along, or if we have
> > (had) some kind of system in place to assign copyright. I think Ciaran
> > answered: we used to but not anymore.
> >
>
> As I said, you could debate whether the present system already assigns
> copyright.  I don't think it is ideal.  It certainly isn't backed by
> any court decisions that I'm aware of.  That doesn't necessarily mean
> that it wouldn't be upheld if it did go to court.  There is really no
> way to be certain without trying it.
>
> But, it is better to rely upon methods that are already proven in
> court over ones that have yet to be proven.  I'm not disputing that.
>
> --
> Rich
>
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Mart Raudsepp  wrote:
> Ühel kenal päeval, N, 27.10.2016 kell 07:21, kirjutas Rich Freeman:
>>
>> Actually, that isn't allowed, and was the very issue that kicked off
>> the entire matter.  You can't just take somebody else's code and
>> change the copyright to "Gentoo project and contributors" if the
>> Gentoo project's only contribution to the file is changing the
>> copyright notice.  From my reading on the topic you generally need to
>> list the largest contributor on the copyright line, which may or may
>> not be the Gentoo Foundation.
>
> "and contributors" covers that, and I didn't specify "Foundation".

Well, legally there is no entity called the "Gentoo project."

> The copyright headers purpose is:
>
> "Contrary to popular belief, providing a copyright notice or
> registering the work with the USCO is not necessary to obtain basic
> copyright protections. But there are some steps that can be taken to
> enhance the creator's ability to sue or stop others from copying:"
>
> Place a copyright notice on a published work. (...) Placing this notice
> on a published work (...) prevents others from claiming that they did
> not know that the work was covered by copyright. This can be important
> if the author is forced to file a lawsuit to enforce the copyright,
> since it is much easier to recover significant money damages from a
> deliberate (as opposed to innocent) copyright infringer."
>
> The copyright header has NO LEGAL meaning. IANAL.

You do realize that the text you quoted isn't the entirety of the law
concerning copyright.

Changing a copyright notice could be construed as slander of title if
the resulting statement isn't accurate.

>
> The copyright header has no meaning on who holds the copyright.

Does writing "Copyright 2016 Richard Freeman" on a retail box of
Microsoft Windows give me any copyright over Microsoft Windows?  No.

Is that statement making an incorrect factual statement as to who owns
the copyright?  Yes.  Can you get in trouble for putting incorrect
factual statements in print?  Yes, depending on the circumstances.
However, things like copyright ownership are the sorts of areas where
people get touchy.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a lawyer with expertise on
copyright who would say that we shouldn't have any concern about who
we should name in our copyright notices.

>From what I've read the recommended practice is to list the largest
contributor "and others."  I don't think it is a good idea to simply
copy the work of others and change the notice to "Gentoo and others"
or something like that if Gentoo doesn't hold the copyrights on the
majority.

In any case, however, I'm not attempting to defend the status quo.  I
wouldn't have drafted the new proposal if I thought what we were doing
today was adequate.  I'm just concerned that dismissing the issue
isn't the right solution either.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

[Mart Raudsepp]

Ühel kenal päeval, N, 27.10.2016 kell 07:21, kirjutas Rich Freeman:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Mart Raudsepp 
> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Projects that want explicit copyright or copyright assignments or
> > CLAs
> > are those that want to be able to re-license the code without
> > getting
> > permissions from everyone (some of whom might not be possible to
> > contact at a future date) or be able to sue someone for license
> > violations without the original developers of the affected parts
> > having
> > to be involved. Are we pursuing those option, or why do we care?
> 
> These are useful options to have available.  The ability to pursue
> violators would not require 100% signing of FLAs to
> work.  Relicensing
> probably would, or close to it, so that might not ever be practical
> unless FLA acceptance is very widespread.
> 
> > 
> > We don't need bogus or
> > non-bogus copyright headers, just a "Gentoo project and
> > contributors"
> > copyright notice or optionally allowing explicit ones to those that
> > want it, together with a license notice.
> 
> Actually, that isn't allowed, and was the very issue that kicked off
> the entire matter.  You can't just take somebody else's code and
> change the copyright to "Gentoo project and contributors" if the
> Gentoo project's only contribution to the file is changing the
> copyright notice.  From my reading on the topic you generally need to
> list the largest contributor on the copyright line, which may or may
> not be the Gentoo Foundation.

"and contributors" covers that, and I didn't specify "Foundation".
The copyright headers purpose is:

"Contrary to popular belief, providing a copyright notice or
registering the work with the USCO is not necessary to obtain basic
copyright protections. But there are some steps that can be taken to
enhance the creator's ability to sue or stop others from copying:"

Place a copyright notice on a published work. (...) Placing this notice
on a published work (...) prevents others from claiming that they did
not know that the work was covered by copyright. This can be important
if the author is forced to file a lawsuit to enforce the copyright,
since it is much easier to recover significant money damages from a
deliberate (as opposed to innocent) copyright infringer."

The copyright header has NO LEGAL meaning. IANAL.

> > And yes, the headers are currently completely bogus. You can
> > consider
> > it to be as such to any file I have contributed copyrightable work
> > to,
> > and the Gentoo Foundation does not have copyright to such work of
> > mine.
> 
> If you don't think your contributions are copyrighted by the Gentoo
> Foundation, you probably shouldn't be putting that statement in the
> files you commit.  I don't see why your commits are any less legally
> binding on you than your statements in emails like the one above.

The copyright header has no meaning on who holds the copyright. The
Gentoo tooling automatically puts these lines or refuses to work. Over
half of the stuff I commit is not copyrightable work in the first
place.
Me committing something with repoman commit (especially during CVS
times even doing a separate commit for this stuff) ending up with some
header doesn't mean I have done any copyright assignment. No court in
my jurisdiction would consider this to be the case. Courts in other
jurisdictions don't even recognize copyright reassignment and some not
even work for hire copyright to the company.

The header is only a tool to lower the chances of someone taking the
work inappropriately. Stop treating it as some kind of law.

> And this is why improving the policy in this space is important.


IANAL,
Mart

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Mart Raudsepp  wrote:
>
> Projects that want explicit copyright or copyright assignments or CLAs
> are those that want to be able to re-license the code without getting
> permissions from everyone (some of whom might not be possible to
> contact at a future date) or be able to sue someone for license
> violations without the original developers of the affected parts having
> to be involved. Are we pursuing those option, or why do we care?

These are useful options to have available.  The ability to pursue
violators would not require 100% signing of FLAs to work.  Relicensing
probably would, or close to it, so that might not ever be practical
unless FLA acceptance is very widespread.

> We don't need bogus or
> non-bogus copyright headers, just a "Gentoo project and contributors"
> copyright notice or optionally allowing explicit ones to those that
> want it, together with a license notice.

Actually, that isn't allowed, and was the very issue that kicked off
the entire matter.  You can't just take somebody else's code and
change the copyright to "Gentoo project and contributors" if the
Gentoo project's only contribution to the file is changing the
copyright notice.  From my reading on the topic you generally need to
list the largest contributor on the copyright line, which may or may
not be the Gentoo Foundation.

>
> And yes, the headers are currently completely bogus. You can consider
> it to be as such to any file I have contributed copyrightable work to,
> and the Gentoo Foundation does not have copyright to such work of mine.

If you don't think your contributions are copyrighted by the Gentoo
Foundation, you probably shouldn't be putting that statement in the
files you commit.  I don't see why your commits are any less legally
binding on you than your statements in emails like the one above.

And this is why improving the policy in this space is important.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

[Mart Raudsepp]

Ühel kenal päeval, E, 24.10.2016 kell 19:07, kirjutas Rich Freeman:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Matt Turner 
> wrote:
> > 
> > In order to contribute to GNU projects, one must sign a copyright
> > assignment statement.
> > 
> > Gentoo doesn't have anything similar as far as I'm aware, which
> > makes
> > me question the legitimacy of "Gentoo Foundation" copyrights.
> > 
> > What is the story?
> > 
> 
> The story of what?
> 
> Are you asking whether they're legally binding?  You'd have to sue
> somebody to find out, because as far as I'm aware the matter is
> untested in court.  I think you could make an argument that
> voluntarily placing that header on your work is an assignment of
> copyright.  You could also argue otherwise.  A court would decide who
> wins.
> 
> Personally I'd rather move to an explicit system.

Why do we care about an explicit copyright system at all?
The copyright holder having licensed the work under our GPL-2 license
or a license that allows to re-license to GPL-2 is what matter to us.
That should be explicit, not chasing some explicit copyright headers
and whatnot specifically.

Projects that want explicit copyright or copyright assignments or CLAs
are those that want to be able to re-license the code without getting
permissions from everyone (some of whom might not be possible to
contact at a future date) or be able to sue someone for license
violations without the original developers of the affected parts having
to be involved. Are we pursuing those option, or why do we care?

Having all copyrightable work explicitly licensed or possible to re-
license to our chosen license is what matter. We don't need bogus or
non-bogus copyright headers, just a "Gentoo project and contributors"
copyright notice or optionally allowing explicit ones to those that
want it, together with a license notice. That's so that people looking
at some file know what license it is, etc, and not run off copying it
into their incompatible license stuff or whatever.

And yes, the headers are currently completely bogus. You can consider
it to be as such to any file I have contributed copyrightable work to,
and the Gentoo Foundation does not have copyright to such work of mine.
It may however use it under the terms of the GPL-2 license.


IANAL,
Mart

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

[Mart Raudsepp]

Ühel kenal päeval, K, 26.10.2016 kell 14:58, kirjutas Kent Fredric:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:25:52 +0200
> Ulrich Mueller  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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

[Peter Stuge]

Rich Freeman wrote:
> I think you could make an argument that voluntarily placing that
> header on your work is an assignment of copyright.
> You could also argue otherwise.

Especially in jurisdictions where copyright can not be assigned.


//Peter

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Denis Dupeyron  wrote:
>
> That said, we could always make it possible for the developer to
> voluntarily assign copyright to the foundation if (s)he so desires.
> And I would certainly do that for myself.
>

The envisioned approach was being able to voluntarily sign the FLA.
The wording of the FLA "...assigns to Gentoo the Copyright in computer
programs and other copyrightable material world-wide, or in countries
where such an assignment is not possible, grants an exclusive
licence..."
https://dev.gentoo.org/~rich0/fla.pdf   (.tex extension also at this URL)

It also has some copyleft style protections so it isn't the universal
handover of rights typically associated with a CLA.  It is based on an
FSFe template.

I think it is worth better understanding some of the personal legal
risks you bring up.  Obviously if you don't have any personal
"property" in the copyrights there is less incentive to go after you
as an individual, though more incentive to go after the Foundation.
The copyleft provisions might act as a poison pill to deter going
after either (to truly seize the copyrights you might actually have to
successfully sue both parties, possibly in different countries, and if
you want to seize the entire distro's copyrights you could have to sue
hundreds of people).  We just need to make sure we don't tick off the
RIAA...

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

[Denis Dupeyron]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Matthias Maier  wrote:
> And I see absolutely no harm in explicitly annotating the actual
> copyright in gentoo ebuilds.

It seems like a simple and practical enough way to go. However, one of
the arguments going for assigning copyright to the Gentoo foundation
at the time we discussed it is that it offers some level of legal
protection to the developer or external contributor. I have first hand
experience of how abusive lawyers can sue you for totally invalid
IP-related reasons and ruin your life. I've been fighting exactly that
for almost 10 years now. So I certainly appreciate the comfort that
assigning copyright of my Gentoo work to the foundation provides me.
Having grown up in Europe I can see why people would think this could
never happen to them, but living in the US has taught me differently.

That said, we could always make it possible for the developer to
voluntarily assign copyright to the foundation if (s)he so desires.
And I would certainly do that for myself.

Calchan.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

[Kent Fredric]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:25:52 +0200
Ulrich Mueller  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.

The format is so regularised 2 people could independently create the
same ebuild.

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.



pgpZ37xxxUZ8r.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

On 10/25/2016 01:28 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 7:25 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
>  wrote:
>> On Monday, October 24, 2016 7:07:41 PM EDT Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>
>>> I think you could make an argument that voluntarily placing that header on
>>> your work is an assignment of copyright.
>>
>> For the original author. That is not the case if adding another's ebuild to
>> tree. Which seems to be the problem in the other thread.
>>
> 
> Completely true, which is why devs aren't supposed to add ebuilds they
> don't hold copyright on without permission.  A DCO would probably help
> with this, which is why that is generally considered a best practice.
> 
+1

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

[Ulrich Mueller]

> On Mon, 24 Oct 2016, Rich Freeman wrote:

> The end date (which is the one that matters the most) is only
> updated when the file is changed. Legally somebody could use an
> earlier version of the file when its copyright expired, but they
> could only use the latest version when its later copyright expires.

> I do tend to agree that we should probably make the start date in
> each file depend on when that file was created, but I'm not sure
> that legally the start date really matters as much.

I disagree. Most of the time, the creation time of an ebuild is
meaningless, because they are usually copied from an earlier version
of the same package. 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.

Because of this I also doubt if we could accurately trace authorship
of individual ebuilds. Maybe adding an AUTHORS files for the whole
tree would make more sense.

Ulrich


pgpV3QCozcCnV.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

[Matthias Maier]

> Well, depending on how this is done the main harm is in administrative
> overhead, unless this is automated, or we use a simplistic approach of
> just continuing to append names.

The pragmatic approach would be to remove the policy and associated
repoman warning and allow contributors to use an alternative copyright
line instead. We could provide a "I don't care" skeleton of the form:

  # Copyright 1999-2016 Gentoo developers and contributors
  # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
  # Author(s): John Doe , ...

(with, or without the Author(s) line)

A modified repoman check could enforce a layout of the form

  # Copyright - [...]
  # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
 [# Author(s): [...]]


We don't have to modify all existing ebuilds to do that. Alternatively,
we can simply change all headers to

  # Copyright 1999-2016 Gentoo developers and contributors

(if the Gentoo Foundation is OK with the few ebuilds were it holds a
copyright ^^).


Best,
Matthias

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Gordon Pettey  wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
>  wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 15:34:14 -0700
>> Matt Turner  wrote:
>> > In order to contribute to GNU projects, one must sign a copyright
>> > assignment statement.
>> >
>> > Gentoo doesn't have anything similar as far as I'm aware, which makes
>> > me question the legitimacy of "Gentoo Foundation" copyrights.
>
>
> That style makes no sense to begin with. Something is copyrighted as of the
> date it is created (whether originally or as an updated edited work), from
> that date until X years in the future depending on what country you're in.
> At worst, that range implies "This file was created in 1999 but in 20xx
> we're making it public domain". Assuming Gentoo still exists in 200 years
> and a certain mouse doesn't extend copyright durations again, a header that
> says "1999-2216" would be quite invalid. Just use the single year as of the
> date of editing. See http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl100.html.

The end date (which is the one that matters the most) is only updated
when the file is changed.  Legally somebody could use an earlier
version of the file when its copyright expired, but they could only
use the latest version when its later copyright expires.

I do tend to agree that we should probably make the start date in each
file depend on when that file was created, but I'm not sure that
legally the start date really matters as much.

You'll see plenty of ebuilds in the tree with pre-2016 copyright end
dates.  Repoman will issue a warning if they're modified to warn devs
to update the date, which is completely appropriate legally (setting
aside the issue of who owns the copyright).

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Monday, October 24, 2016 7:28:45 PM EDT Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> Completely true, which is why devs aren't supposed to add ebuilds they
> don't hold copyright on without permission.  A DCO would probably help
> with this, which is why that is generally considered a best practice.

I think it is ok if you credit original work with copyright statement and link 
to source. More complex if ebuild development is ongoing. Less so if its a one 
time add to tree and is maintained under Gentoo copyright from there.

That at least should address any legalities temporarily. Though not best long 
term solution.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

[Gordon Pettey]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Ciaran McCreesh <
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 15:34:14 -0700
> Matt Turner  wrote:
> > In order to contribute to GNU projects, one must sign a copyright
> > assignment statement.
> >
> > Gentoo doesn't have anything similar as far as I'm aware, which makes
> > me question the legitimacy of "Gentoo Foundation" copyrights.


That style makes no sense to begin with. Something is copyrighted as of the
date it is created (whether originally or as an updated edited work), from
that date until X years in the future depending on what country you're in.
At worst, that range implies "This file was created in 1999 but in 20xx
we're making it public domain". Assuming Gentoo still exists in 200 years
and a certain mouse doesn't extend copyright durations again, a header that
says "1999-2216" would be quite invalid. Just use the single year as of the
date of editing. See http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl100.html.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 7:25 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
 wrote:
> On Monday, October 24, 2016 7:07:41 PM EDT Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> I think you could make an argument that voluntarily placing that header on
>> your work is an assignment of copyright.
>
> For the original author. That is not the case if adding another's ebuild to
> tree. Which seems to be the problem in the other thread.
>

Completely true, which is why devs aren't supposed to add ebuilds they
don't hold copyright on without permission.  A DCO would probably help
with this, which is why that is generally considered a best practice.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Matthias Maier  wrote:
>> I think you could make an argument that voluntarily placing that
>> header on your work is an assignment of copyright.
>
> I very much doubt that.
>

Well, like I said you can argue it either way.  Everybody is going to
have an opinion, but the only ones that matter are those of the
various top-level courts internationally, especially the US Supreme
Court (since US law tends to get enforced extra-judicially).

>
> And I see absolutely no harm in explicitly annotating the actual
> copyright in gentoo ebuilds.
>

Well, depending on how this is done the main harm is in administrative
overhead, unless this is automated, or we use a simplistic approach of
just continuing to append names.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

On Monday, October 24, 2016 7:07:41 PM EDT Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> I think you could make an argument that voluntarily placing that header on  
> your work is an assignment of copyright. 

For the original author. That is not the case if adding another's ebuild to 
tree. Which seems to be the problem in the other thread.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

[Matthias Maier]

> I think you could make an argument that voluntarily placing that
> header on your work is an assignment of copyright.

I very much doubt that.



> Personally I'd rather move to an explicit system.

Yes!

And I see absolutely no harm in explicitly annotating the actual
copyright in gentoo ebuilds.



Best,
Matthias

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Matt Turner  wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Rich Freeman  wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Matt Turner  wrote:
>>> In order to contribute to GNU projects, one must sign a copyright
>>> assignment statement.
>>>
>>> Gentoo doesn't have anything similar as far as I'm aware, which makes
>>> me question the legitimacy of "Gentoo Foundation" copyrights.
>>>
>>> What is the story?
>>>
>>
>> The story of what?
>>
>> Are you asking whether they're legally binding?  You'd have to sue
>> somebody to find out, because as far as I'm aware the matter is
>> untested in court.  I think you could make an argument that
>> voluntarily placing that header on your work is an assignment of
>> copyright.  You could also argue otherwise.  A court would decide who
>> wins.
>
> I'm asking whether we're just cargo-culting it along, or if we have
> (had) some kind of system in place to assign copyright. I think Ciaran
> answered: we used to but not anymore.
>

As I said, you could debate whether the present system already assigns
copyright.  I don't think it is ideal.  It certainly isn't backed by
any court decisions that I'm aware of.  That doesn't necessarily mean
that it wouldn't be upheld if it did go to court.  There is really no
way to be certain without trying it.

But, it is better to rely upon methods that are already proven in
court over ones that have yet to be proven.  I'm not disputing that.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

[Matt Turner]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Rich Freeman  wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Matt Turner  wrote:
>> In order to contribute to GNU projects, one must sign a copyright
>> assignment statement.
>>
>> Gentoo doesn't have anything similar as far as I'm aware, which makes
>> me question the legitimacy of "Gentoo Foundation" copyrights.
>>
>> What is the story?
>>
>
> The story of what?
>
> Are you asking whether they're legally binding?  You'd have to sue
> somebody to find out, because as far as I'm aware the matter is
> untested in court.  I think you could make an argument that
> voluntarily placing that header on your work is an assignment of
> copyright.  You could also argue otherwise.  A court would decide who
> wins.

I'm asking whether we're just cargo-culting it along, or if we have
(had) some kind of system in place to assign copyright. I think Ciaran
answered: we used to but not anymore.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Matt Turner  wrote:
> In order to contribute to GNU projects, one must sign a copyright
> assignment statement.
>
> Gentoo doesn't have anything similar as far as I'm aware, which makes
> me question the legitimacy of "Gentoo Foundation" copyrights.
>
> What is the story?
>

The story of what?

Are you asking whether they're legally binding?  You'd have to sue
somebody to find out, because as far as I'm aware the matter is
untested in court.  I think you could make an argument that
voluntarily placing that header on your work is an assignment of
copyright.  You could also argue otherwise.  A court would decide who
wins.

Personally I'd rather move to an explicit system.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 15:34:14 -0700
Matt Turner  wrote:
> In order to contribute to GNU projects, one must sign a copyright
> assignment statement.
> 
> Gentoo doesn't have anything similar as far as I'm aware, which makes
> me question the legitimacy of "Gentoo Foundation" copyrights.
> 
> What is the story?

Gentoo did have a copyright transfer agreement at one point, which was
written by an actual paid-for lawyer. Developers had to agree to hand
over their floppy disks and monitors to the Foundation upon request.
Developers who were recruited in a particular time window had to sign
it, but anyone who started before didn't.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[gentoo-dev] Are "Copyright 1999-20xx Gentoo Foundation" headers bogus?

[Matt Turner]

In order to contribute to GNU projects, one must sign a copyright
assignment statement.

Gentoo doesn't have anything similar as far as I'm aware, which makes
me question the legitimacy of "Gentoo Foundation" copyrights.

What is the story?

(I thought my other thread "Contributed ebuilds and copyright
questions" might devolve into a discussion on this point, so this is
my preventative attempt to contain it here)