Re: Copyright, non-US devs and Gentoo Foundation vs Gentoo (Was: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting)
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 in PDF here: http://www.fsf-europe.org/projects/fla/FLA.en.pdf This may be more appropriate than a straight copyright assingment as used by FSF (US). I guess this is an issue for the trustees, rather than the council, but (b)cc'ed both for comment. -- Kevin F. Quinn signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Copyright, non-US devs and Gentoo Foundation vs Gentoo (Was: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting)
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 > > > "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 repositories is copyrighted (solely) by the Gentoo > > > Foundation, due to me being German citizen and writing that stuff > > > in Germany. FYI, there isn't even something like Copyright in > > > Germany. We have an "Author's right" which agree with the Berne > > > Convention and deviates from copyright in several points. > > > > Except that you "giving away copyright" or "donating to public > > domain" is understood by (german) courts to give away usage rights, > > which is exactly what is intended, no? > That doesn't come down to the effects for the Gentoo Foundation: > > Corporation Foo uses the Gentoo-x86 tree in violation of GPL. Foundation > tries to sue them, as they think they have the copyright. Corporation > Foo's lawyers say: Uh, you don't even have the copyright on all of > gentoo-x86. See the problem? No, the foundation has copyright on portions of it, and they are allowed to assert that copyright. So everything is just fine. thanks, greg "i've talked to too many lawyers lately" k-h -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: Copyright, non-US devs and Gentoo Foundation vs Gentoo (Was: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting)
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 > > of the EU. E.g, *none* of the stuff that I ever commited to > > Gentoo's repositories is copyrighted (solely) by the Gentoo > > Foundation, due to me being German citizen and writing that stuff > > in Germany. FYI, there isn't even something like Copyright in > > Germany. We have an "Author's right" which agree with the Berne > > Convention and deviates from copyright in several points. > > Except that you "giving away copyright" or "donating to public > domain" is understood by (german) courts to give away usage rights, > which is exactly what is intended, no? That doesn't come down to the effects for the Gentoo Foundation: Corporation Foo uses the Gentoo-x86 tree in violation of GPL. Foundation tries to sue them, as they think they have the copyright. Corporation Foo's lawyers say: Uh, you don't even have the copyright on all of gentoo-x86. See the problem? Danny -- Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: Copyright, non-US devs and Gentoo Foundation vs Gentoo (Was: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting)
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 repositories is copyrighted (solely) by the Gentoo Foundation, due to me being German citizen and writing that stuff in Germany. FYI, there isn't even something like Copyright in Germany. We have an "Author's right" which agree with the Berne Convention and deviates from copyright in several points. Except that you "giving away copyright" or "donating to public domain" is understood by (german) courts to give away usage rights, which is exactly what is intended, no? Regards, Thomas -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: Copyright, non-US devs and Gentoo Foundation vs Gentoo (Was: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting)
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. ^ It's still Europe :P --' -- Kind Regards, Simon Stelling Gentoo/AMD64 developer -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Copyright, non-US devs and Gentoo Foundation vs Gentoo (Was: [gentoo-dev] Some council topics for March meeting)
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 > Gentoo Foundation, Inc.) has *ALWAYS* been Gentoo policy. Not quit true, it *had* been policy: 1) Since the copyright agreement has been taken back by the foundation several gentoo devs joined who never agreed on assigning copyright of their work to the foundation. 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 repositories is copyrighted (solely) by the Gentoo Foundation, due to me being German citizen and writing that stuff in Germany. FYI, there isn't even something like Copyright in Germany. We have an "Author's right" which agree with the Berne Convention and deviates from copyright in several points. > 1) Any material created by Gentoo developers, as part of an official > Gentoo Project, needs to have copyright assigned to the Gentoo > Foundation, whether or not it is currently included in the Portage > tree. This protects all of our collective contributions against > misuse, which is why it is policy. As I pointed out above, that's useless. See the Berne Convention and keep in mind that only half of the (active) developers come from the US. > 2) Any material not assigned to the Gentoo Foundation cannot be > considered an official Gentoo Project. It would not fall under the FUD. Honestly, Gentoo as a project should not care if it is copyrighted to the Foundation. The *Foundation* should strive to work with the Authors on a mutually acceptable way of copyrighting it. > umbrella/scope of the development project that is Gentoo, which is in > part a legal structure to protect our collective work, (code, logos, > etc.) and would be considered a third-party project. > > I'd be really surprised - flabbergasted, really - if this has > changed. But at this point I almost wouldn't be surprised. :) Suprise! :-) Danny -- Danny van Dyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list