On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Mart Raudsepp <l...@gentoo.org> 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
