I note that FSF-Europe uses what it calls a "Fiduciary Licence
Agreement" to gain the ability to prosecute license violations for
software whose copyright is distributed amongst many owners.
Discussion here:
http://www.fsf-europe.org/projects/fla/fla.html
and the boilerplate for FTF's agreement i
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 08:24:23PM +0100, Danny van Dyk wrote:
> Am Samstag, 3. M?rz 2007 19:48 schrieb Thomas R?sner:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Danny van Dyk schrieb:
> > > 2) There are countries who acutally adhere to the Berne Convention
> > > (1886). This means even the deed of commiting sources with a
>
Am Samstag, 3. März 2007 19:48 schrieb Thomas Rösner:
> Hi,
>
> Danny van Dyk schrieb:
> > 2) There are countries who acutally adhere to the Berne Convention
> > (1886). This means even the deed of commiting sources with a
> > "Copyright (C) Gentoo Foundation" is useless in most countries
> >
Hi,
Danny van Dyk schrieb:
2) There are countries who acutally adhere to the Berne Convention
(1886). This means even the deed of commiting sources with a "Copyright
(C) Gentoo Foundation" is useless in most countries of the EU.
E.g, *none* of the stuff that I ever commited to Gentoo's rep
Danny van Dyk wrote:
> 2) There are countries who acutally adhere to the Berne Convention
> (1886). This means even the deed of commiting sources with a "Copyright
> (C) Gentoo Foundation" is useless in most countries of the EU.
Hi Daniel,
> > I'm also curious as to why people should be expected to assign
> > copyright to a group that is known for licence violations and
> > removing attribution from documents. How does this protect
> > anything?
>
> Copyright assignment (first to Gentoo Technologies, Inc., then to
> Gento
