Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[Stefan Monnier]

>You should file your bug report with your distribution and let them
>forward it.  They will know whether the bug is truly in the
>upstream release or in something they have added and will be able
>to provide more information and testing and consolidate multiple
>reports of the same bug.

> I suggest people do _not_ do this.

I guess it depends on whether you think of an ideal situation, or
a real-world situation.  In an ideal situation, I think the bug should be
sent to the distribution who sends it to the package maintainer and sends
a copy upstream at the same time (unless the package maintainer is
sufficiently skilled and quick, in which case he should first filter the
bug reports and only send the relevant ones upstream).
Of course, in that ideal world, a package would be almost unchanged compared
to the upstream version, making it less likely that the bug is absent from
the upstream version.

In real life, many distributions and package maintainers apply too many
local changes and don't forward bug reports upstream swiftly enough.
So I recommend that bug reports be sent by the user directly to *both* the
distribution and the upstream.  Unless the user is sufficiently skilled to
first determine whether the bug is present upstream.


Stefan
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[Alexander Terekhov]

Drazen Kacar wrote:
[...]
> I don't know what is "narrowly tailored waiver" supposed to look like.

Something along the lines below? ;-)

http://forge.mysql.com/wiki/MySQL_Contributor_License_Agreement

"2.4 You hereby waive any and all moral rights you may have in any of 
the Contributions, including without limitation any rights of integrity 
and disclosure."

And don't miss Section 10:

"If You are a resident of the European Union, this Agreement shall be 
governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Sweden 
(without regard to its principles of conflicts of law). If You are a 
resident of a country outside the European Union, this Agreement shall 
be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State 
of California, U.S.A. (without regard to its principles of conflicts of 
law). You agree that the terms and conditions of this Agreement are 
reasonable and necessary for protection of MySQL's interest in the 
Project and the assigned Contributions, and that irreparable injury will 
result to MySQL if You breach any term or condition herein. You agree 
that MySQL may take any necessary action to compel specific performance 
or enjoin any violation of this Agreement before any court of competent 
jurisdiction. MySQL, as used herein, shall mean MySQL AB, as well as 
its successors and assigns."

regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[James Carlson]

Drazen Kacar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >  Nonsense.  It protects both Sun and the contributor from being dragged
> >  to arbitrary third locations to defend themselves.
> 
> Dragged by whom? USA is as arbitrary third location from my point of
> view. The whole USA, not just California. And I certainly don't want to
> be dragged in any USA court. I have nothing against them, but, you know,
> there are people who just don't live in the USA.

No kidding.  Snide remarks aside, I think you're still
misunderstanding, and I can't tell why that might be.

I said "third location" because I meant it.  Here's a better
description of the problem than I can muster, and from an actual
lawyer (no less):

  http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/choice_of_venue

> >  But, again, if you don't understand the language there (legalese is
> >  indeed dense stuff), you're best off getting good counsel.
> 
> In which country?

Yours.  Or the ones in which you do business.

-- 
James Carlson, KISS Network<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[Merijn de Weerd]

On 2006-10-20, James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Merijn de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Basically, this says "if Sun ever forgets to credit you,
>> or performs something you consider a mutilation of your
>> work, you won't sue Sun".
>
> That's basically true.  If such a thing weren't there, then other
> contributors (including both people inside Sun and those outside)
> would be unable to fix any bugs in the code you contribute.

Of course anyone is free to fix bugs in code submissions.
The only thing other people can't do is *mutilate* the code.
This is a very high standard that's not easy to meet.

Merijn

-- 
Remove +nospam to reply
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[John Hasler]

Drazen Kacar writes:
> USA is as arbitrary third location from my point of view. The whole USA,
> not just California. And I certainly don't want to be dragged in any USA
> court.

"Governed by California law" does not mean "governed by California courts".
It just means that whatever court is interpreting the license should apply
California law.  Some courts may, of course, choose not to do so, but US
Federal courts will.  So will ICC arbitration panels, I believe.
-- 
John Hasler 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[Drazen Kacar]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 
>  Drazen Kacar wrote:
>  [...]
> > Irish copyright law gives such moral rights to individuals, the said 
> > rights are not transferable and there's no way to give them up, as 
> > far as Irish law is concerned.
> 
>  http://www.icla.ie/index.php?information
> 
>  "Moral rights may be waived, but a waiver must be in writing."

I misremembered. I tried to think of the copyright law which is
available in English, so the interested parties could check, but I
didn't check myself. I appologize for the confusion.

>  Ireland aside for a moment, see also 
> 
>  http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/ilj/rigamonti.pdf

Interesting document. Thaks for pointing that out.

>  If there is a general set of rules that has emerged from the case law in
>  France and Germany, it is
>   (i) that authors cannot legally relinquish or abandon the rights of
>   attribution and integrity altogether,
>  (ii) that advance blanket waivers are unenforceable, and
> (iii) that narrowly tailored waivers that involve reasonably
>   foreseeable encroachments on the author's moral rights are
>   generally valid.

I don't know what is "narrowly tailored waiver" supposed to look like.
But I suppose that's from the court practice, not from the copyright
law.

And yes, copyright laws in Europe vary in details, even when the general
principles are the same. They are also updated from time to time.

-- 
 .-.   .-.Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely
(_  \ /  _)   ceremonial.
 |
 |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[Alexander Terekhov]

Drazen Kacar wrote:
[...]
> Sigh. I asked a lawyer about certain things once, when I needed legal
> advice. Two American lawyers, in fact. And they both said, among other
> things, "Never give jurisdiction away". And then went on to explain the
> reasons.

But choice of law is not jurisdiction. Google Rome convention.

regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[Alexander Terekhov]

Drazen Kacar wrote:
[...]
> Irish copyright law gives such moral rights to individuals, the said 
> rights are not transferable and there's no way to give them up, as 
> far as Irish law is concerned.

http://www.icla.ie/index.php?information

"Moral rights may be waived, but a waiver must be in writing."

Ireland aside for a moment, see also 

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/ilj/rigamonti.pdf

--
If there is a general set of rules that has emerged from the case law in
France and Germany, it is (i) that authors cannot legally relinquish or 
abandon the rights of attribution and integrity altogether, (ii) that 
advance blanket waivers are unenforceable, and (iii) that narrowly 
tailored waivers that involve reasonably foreseeable encroachments on 
the author’s moral rights are generally valid.139 In the context of the 
right of integrity, this essentially means that courts are inclined to 
side with the author if the other party to the contract distorts140 the 
work then attempts to invoke a generic waiver provision in its defense.141 

Conversely, the courts tend to rule against authors if the authors 
approve specific modifications either before or after the fact and then 
try to rely on their inalienable moral rights to reverse their previous 
decision to the detriment of the other party to the contract.142 Regarding 
the right of attribution, the common denominator is that authors always 
preserve their right to disclose the fact of their authorship, even if they 
previously agreed to publish their work anonymously or under a pseudonym.143 

Whether such disclosure makes the author liable for breach of contract is a 
different question, which is decided on a case-by-case basis.144 Yet another 
question is whether authors who contractually waive their moral right of 
attribution can later change their minds and demand attribution.145 The 
general trend in France and Germany146 is to recognize these waivers as 
valid,147 but also to allow authors to unilaterally revoke them for the 
future,148 at least after the passing of a certain time period.149 

[...]

What distinguishes the British system from the French, German, and Italian
moral rights regimes is that the rights of attribution and integrity come
with a host of substantive limitations and exceptions that reduce the scope
of their application to the point where statutory moral rights become 
largely symbolic. Aside from a number of restrictions on remedies,284 for 
example, the rights of attribution and integrity do not apply to computer 
programs, to works made for hire, to works published in periodicals, or to 
collective works of reference,285 and authors of musical works need not be 
named when the work is publicly performed.286 Moreover, it is doubtful 
whether the right of attribution includes a right of anonymity,287 and the 
CDPA specifically states that the right of attribution is not infringed 
unless previously asserted in a written instrument, with the exception of 
the public exhibition of artistic works, in which case affixing the 
author’s name to a copy of the work is sufficient.288 With respect to the 
right of integrity, the statutory definition of “derogatory treatment” 
explicitly excludes translations of literary or dramatic works, as well as 
arrangements or transcriptions of musical works involving no more than a 
change of key or register,289 and it is questionable whether the
right of integrity covers contextual modifications in addition to actual
modifications.290

Aside from the issue of scope, the most important feature of statutory 
moral rights law in the United Kingdom is its exceptionally generous waiver 
regime.291 The CDPA allows authors and directors to validly consent to any
act that violates their moral rights.292
---

regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[Drazen Kacar]

James Carlson wrote:
>  Merijn de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Basically, this says "if Sun ever forgets to credit you,
> > or performs something you consider a mutilation of your
> > work, you won't sue Sun".
> 
>  That's basically true.  If such a thing weren't there, then other
>  contributors (including both people inside Sun and those outside)
>  would be unable to fix any bugs in the code you contribute.

Why? AFAIK, Sun has (or has had) employees in Ireland. Irish copyright
law gives such moral rights to individuals, the said rights are not
transferable and there's no way to give them up, as far as Irish law is
concerned.

Did that prevent other people to fix bugs in their code?

-- 
 .-.   .-.Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely
(_  \ /  _)   ceremonial.
 |
 |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[Drazen Kacar]

James Carlson wrote:
>  Drazen Kacar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > James Carlson wrote:
> > 
> > That's void under my local copyright law,
> 
>  Perhaps.  I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one.  Particularly
>  so for the ".hr" domain.

Well, the .hr domain has copyright law which is similar to copyright
laws in a large number of Europeean countries. And, of course, they
don't have the same laws. Nor even the same governing principles for the
copyright law.

>  I do note that you've conveniently omitted the preceding sentence
>  which makes it clear that it's to the extent permitted by law.

I have. That was because the agreement specifies USA law, so my sentence
quoted above was meant as an example of a different law, nothing more.

However, there's no court in the USA which would apply something that's
not in the USA copyright law. That was supposed to be the point.

Besides, sententes which say "to the extent permitted by law" in various
contracts, agreements and licenses are there for one purpose only: most
countries have a law which says that the whole contract is void if one
provision is illegal (that is, not permitted by some law in that
particular country). So the contracts, agreements and licenses meant for
international cosumption have a statement which makes the rest of the
contract, agreement or license legal. And that statement is "to the
extent permitted by applicable law" or something to that effect.

That is the default in such matters. I didn't think I had to point out
the defaults.

>  My understanding is that "moral rights" are not necessarily the same
>  as copyrights in all countries, which is why they're called out
>  separately.

I do not follow. As far as I can see, the term copyright, as a "one
right", doesn't mean anything unless you mean it to include all the
rights under the particular copyright law.

>  But if you have a concern here with this or with any
>  other contract language, then you really need competent legal
>  representation.

I don't have a concern with syntax (contract language), I have a concern
with semantics (what it means).

>  Turning to netnews as a way to get legal advice is a questionable
>  tactic.

I wasn't looking for legal advice, I was merly trying to participate in
the discussion.

> > And then:
> > 
> >This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of
> >California and applicable U.S. Federal law, without application of
> >choice of law rules.
> > 
> > That, in case one does not live in the State of California, happens to be
> > a pretty large giveaway.
> 
>  Nonsense.  It protects both Sun and the contributor from being dragged
>  to arbitrary third locations to defend themselves.

Dragged by whom? USA is as arbitrary third location from my point of
view. The whole USA, not just California. And I certainly don't want to
be dragged in any USA court. I have nothing against them, but, you know,
there are people who just don't live in the USA.

>  But, again, if you don't understand the language there (legalese is
>  indeed dense stuff), you're best off getting good counsel.

In which country?

>  Anything else -- regarding this license or the GPL or any other legal
>  matter -- is nearly pure guesswork.
> 
>  You wouldn't ask a lawyer to write your code, would you?

Sigh. I asked a lawyer about certain things once, when I needed legal
advice. Two American lawyers, in fact. And they both said, among other
things, "Never give jurisdiction away". And then went on to explain the
reasons.

-- 
 .-.   .-.Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely
(_  \ /  _)   ceremonial.
 |
 |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[Drazen Kacar]

Casper H.S  Dik wrote:
>  Drazen Kacar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> >Eh? But it says:
> 
> >   You agree never to assert against Sun or its licensees or transferees
> >   any moral rights therein.
> 
> >That's void under my local copyright law, but the provision certainly is
> >giving copyright rights away. And then:
> 
>  Why is that void in you rlocal law? (Just interested).

On principle, for the same reason why slave trade is illegal. In
jurisdictions which have them, the lists of rights which fall under
moral rights slightly differ, but in general those rights are not
something that has market value.

The usual one is the right to be identified as an author of the work in
question.

But then there are others. I'm not good at translating legal terms, but
there's a provision which says that the author has moral right to
prevent circulation of "butchered" derivations. For example, a film
producer might decide to add slimey happy end. No can do, unless the
director says it's OK. Contractual provisions which negate that right
are void.

In case of software, the same provision means that it's possible for the
author to stop circulation of a derivative work which happens to be so
buggy that it's practicly unusable and severly harms author's
reputation. (This is my interpretations, there were no court cases, as
far as I know.)

And that's a right I'd like to retain. :-)

>  I'm not sure it is giving rights away; you retain the right to copy,
>  modify, etc; but you share that right with others.

Sharing is not a problem. Inability to put an end to the abuse is.

> >   This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of
> >   California and applicable U.S. Federal law, without application of
> >   choice of law rules.
> 
> >That, in case one does not live in the State of California, happens to be
> >a pretty large giveaway.
> 
> 
>  Please read:
> 
>   http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/choice_of_venue
> 
>  before you think that this is a large giveaway.

I still think it's a large concession. But there's more than one issue.

>  (Exec. Summary: If the California courts have no jurisdiction, this clause
>  does not change that)

OK, let's start with that. The article says so, and the article is
probably correct, but I don't have a problem with the choice of venue
(that's what the article is all about). I have a problem with the
jurisdiction. Most countries don't have legal machinery which is
compatible with other countries, up to the point that other legal
systems are treated as non-existant.

There are practical reasons for that and I recognize them, but they
become my problem only if I agree for them to become my problem.

As far as I can see, the article assumes both parties live (trade, make
business or whatever) in the USA and then goes to say that California
courts have no jurisdiction unless both parties live, trade, make
business or whatever in California. That's all nice and fine, but what
if the parties don't live in the same country at all?

Side note: bilateral international treaties might or might not exist (no
way to tell, because I don't know in which coutry I'll live ten years
from now). There are multilateral international agreements about
jurisdiction problems which have a higher probability of being in
effect, but a lot of software licenses I've seen specify that they shall
not govern the case. Wonder why. (This is not related to the case in
question, I'm just being a smart-ass).

My second issue with the article is that it's about CDDL and not about
contributor agreement. When the CDDL was in draft I complained about
jurisdiction provision here, Joerg said he complained also (to Sun) and
that the issue would be taken care of. And it was, in a way. The CDDL
was changed to say that the party which is making the software available
will specify the jurisdiction in a note distributed with the software.

That isn't that bad and certainly makes CDDL more usable for parties in
other jurisdictions.

And it's not entirely unfair that Sun should be able to specify
jurisdiction for the software it's making available to other parties.
Since it's not selling, so trade laws probably don't apply.

However, in this case I'm supposed to be the party which is making the
software available to the other party, but I can't pick the
jurisdiction. I don't like it.

-- 
 .-.   .-.Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely
(_  \ /  _)   ceremonial.
 |
 |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[James Carlson]

Merijn de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Basically, this says "if Sun ever forgets to credit you,
> or performs something you consider a mutilation of your
> work, you won't sue Sun".

That's basically true.  If such a thing weren't there, then other
contributors (including both people inside Sun and those outside)
would be unable to fix any bugs in the code you contribute.

> And like Drazen noted, that
> kind of clause usually is void (especially the second part).

I have no idea about that.  If it's actually true, then more power to
you.

-- 
James Carlson, KISS Network<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[Merijn de Weerd]

On 2006-10-19, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Drazen Kacar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>You agree never to assert against Sun or its licensees or transferees
>>any moral rights therein.
>>
>> That's void under my local copyright law, but the provision certainly is
>> giving copyright rights away.
>
> No, it is relinquishing those rights, not transferring them to anybody
> else.  Fine difference.  Anyway, does anybody else find "moral rights"
> a most peculiar expression in such a legal clause?

No, that's fairly standard terminology for copyright licenses
in jurisdictions that recognize moral rights as Berne intended it.

Basically, this says "if Sun ever forgets to credit you,
or performs something you consider a mutilation of your
work, you won't sue Sun". And like Drazen noted, that
kind of clause usually is void (especially the second part).

Merijn

-- 
Remove +nospam to reply
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[John Hasler]

Casper H.S. Dik writes:
> Why is that void in you rlocal law? (Just interested).

In some jurisdictions you are not permitted to give up your "moral
rights".  
-- 
John Hasler 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[Casper H . S . Dik]

Drazen Kacar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>Eh? But it says:

>   You agree never to assert against Sun or its licensees or transferees
>   any moral rights therein.

>That's void under my local copyright law, but the provision certainly is
>giving copyright rights away. And then:

Why is that void in you rlocal law? (Just interested).

I'm not sure it is giving rights away; you retain the right to copy,
modify, etc; but you share that right with others.

>   This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of
>   California and applicable U.S. Federal law, without application of
>   choice of law rules.

>That, in case one does not live in the State of California, happens to be
>a pretty large giveaway.


Please read:

http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/choice_of_venue

before you think that this is a large giveaway.

(Exec. Summary: If the California courts have no jurisdiction, this clause
does not change that)

Casper
-- 
Expressed in this posting are my opinions.  They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[David Kastrup]

Drazen Kacar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> James Carlson wrote:
>
>>  Open Solaris requries a joint copyright arrangement.  You can read the
>>  details here:
>> 
>>http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/sun_contributor_agreement/
>> 
>>  As the author you, of course, retain your copyright interest.  You
>>  don't have to give that away.
>
> Eh? But it says:
>
>You agree never to assert against Sun or its licensees or transferees
>any moral rights therein.
>
> That's void under my local copyright law, but the provision certainly is
> giving copyright rights away.

No, it is relinquishing those rights, not transferring them to anybody
else.  Fine difference.  Anyway, does anybody else find "moral rights"
a most peculiar expression in such a legal clause?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[James Carlson]

Drazen Kacar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> James Carlson wrote:
> 
> >  Open Solaris requries a joint copyright arrangement.  You can read the
> >  details here:
> > 
> >http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/sun_contributor_agreement/
> > 
> >  As the author you, of course, retain your copyright interest.  You
> >  don't have to give that away.
> 
> Eh? But it says:
> 
>You agree never to assert against Sun or its licensees or transferees
>any moral rights therein.
> 
> That's void under my local copyright law,

Perhaps.  I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be one.  Particularly
so for the ".hr" domain.

I do note that you've conveniently omitted the preceding sentence
which makes it clear that it's to the extent permitted by law.

> but the provision certainly is
> giving copyright rights away.

My understanding is that "moral rights" are not necessarily the same
as copyrights in all countries, which is why they're called out
separately.  But if you have a concern here with this or with any
other contract language, then you really need competent legal
representation.  Turning to netnews as a way to get legal advice is a
questionable tactic.

> And then:
> 
>This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of
>California and applicable U.S. Federal law, without application of
>choice of law rules.
> 
> That, in case one does not live in the State of California, happens to be
> a pretty large giveaway.

Nonsense.  It protects both Sun and the contributor from being dragged
to arbitrary third locations to defend themselves.

But, again, if you don't understand the language there (legalese is
indeed dense stuff), you're best off getting good counsel.  Anything
else -- regarding this license or the GPL or any other legal matter --
is nearly pure guesswork.

You wouldn't ask a lawyer to write your code, would you?

-- 
James Carlson, KISS Network<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[Drazen Kacar]

James Carlson wrote:

>  Open Solaris requries a joint copyright arrangement.  You can read the
>  details here:
> 
>http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/sun_contributor_agreement/
> 
>  As the author you, of course, retain your copyright interest.  You
>  don't have to give that away.

Eh? But it says:

   You agree never to assert against Sun or its licensees or transferees
   any moral rights therein.

That's void under my local copyright law, but the provision certainly is
giving copyright rights away. And then:

   This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of
   California and applicable U.S. Federal law, without application of
   choice of law rules.

That, in case one does not live in the State of California, happens to be
a pretty large giveaway.

-- 
 .-.   .-.Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely
(_  \ /  _)   ceremonial.
 |
 |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[James Carlson]

"Mike Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On a related subject, we have developed a kernel mode driver for our
> Microsoft Wireless Optical Mice with Tilt Wheel Technology,
> complete with device file in /dev and all needed ioctls necessary
> for querying signal strength, battery life status, and other misc.
> statistics, for Linux, that we have now ported to the OpenSolaris
> kernel (hence the xpost to c.u.s). My question is, is the same
> type of copyright transfer needed to get this driver into OpenSolaris
> proper?

Open Solaris requries a joint copyright arrangement.  You can read the
details here:

  http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/sun_contributor_agreement/

As the author you, of course, retain your copyright interest.  You
don't have to give that away.

> How would we handle code shared between the Linux and
> OpenSolaris driver?

If you're the author of the code, you can issue it under as many or as
few separate licenses as you choose.  It's your issue.

-- 
James Carlson, KISS Network<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[David Kastrup]

Ceri Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On 2006-10-18, Mike Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> (4) In other places they claim they're doing this because GNU,
>> Debian, and the BSDs are requiring copyright transfer as well
>> [1]. Well I know that some GNU projects recommend it (emacs,
>> libstdc++), but by far not all; and I have heard first hand that
>> Debian not only does not require it, but they don't even have an
>> entity one could assign copyright to even if one wanted to. (Does
>> anyone know about the BSDs?)
>
> FreeBSD absolutely does not require copyright transfer.  I don't
> know about the other three, but I don't believe it's the case there
> either.

I don't think a copyright transfer makes even remote sense without an
identifiable legal entity as the recipient.  When a project is
"community-driven" like Debian, this would not really seem the case.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[Ceri Davies]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 2006-10-18, Mike Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> (4) In other places they claim they're doing this because
> GNU, Debian, and the BSDs are requiring copyright transfer as
> well [1]. Well I know that some GNU projects recommend it (emacs,
> libstdc++), but by far not all; and I have heard first hand that
> Debian not only does not require it, but they don't even have an
> entity one could assign copyright to even if one wanted to. (Does
> anyone know about the BSDs?)

FreeBSD absolutely does not require copyright transfer.  I don't know
about the other three, but I don't believe it's the case there either.

Ceri
- -- 
That must be wonderful!  I don't understand it at all.
  -- Moliere
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFFN1yFocfcwTS3JF8RAoWNAJ432uA6GWadkHwXw877NymQzdHFUQCguwDo
3ENHIzqSXmbYwkOxYnYmjes=
=p934
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[David Kastrup]

John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Robert Riches writes:
>> John, what distribution are you involved with as a maintainer or
>> developer?
>
> Debian (where "maintainer" and "developer" mean the same thing).
>
>> However, when I filed a bug report against Mandriva, I was told _I_
>> should file a report against upstream and then wait until the
>> upstream developer released the fix and the fix was put into the
>> next Mandriva release.  The Mandriva person didn't want to get
>> involved.
>
> Unfortunately, some Debian maintainers agree with him.

I think that the report should get to upstream as fast as possible and
analyzed as well as possible.  Whether it makes sense to leave it to a
downstream maintainer depends on his skill set and his involvement
with the code in question.

If upstream is going to fix the problem, it makes sense for downstream
to employ the same fix, either by taking a new version or backporting
a fix.  If there is going to be a new version, it makes sense to
minimize the divergence for the sake of future maintainers and current
users.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[John Hasler]

Robert Riches writes:
> John, what distribution are you involved with as a maintainer or
> developer?

Debian (where "maintainer" and "developer" mean the same thing).

> However, when I filed a bug report against Mandriva, I was told _I_
> should file a report against upstream and then wait until the upstream
> developer released the fix and the fix was put into the next Mandriva
> release.  The Mandriva person didn't want to get involved.

Unfortunately, some Debian maintainers agree with him.
-- 
John Hasler 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   [...] However, when I filed a bug report against Mandriva, I was
   told _I_ should file a report against upstream and then wait until
   the upstream developer released the fix and the fix was put into
   the next Mandriva release.  The Mandriva person didn't want to get
   involved.

That is exactly how is _should_ work.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[Robert M. Riches Jr.]

On 2006-10-18, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael writes:
>> If the bug is with a program, the patch should go to the program's
>> developer.  If they are applying the patch to 3rd party programs, then
>> it's basically a fork, a new version of an existing program.
>
> When I receive a bug report on one of my packages with a patch that I think
> should be applied I forward it upstream but I also apply it to the next
> Debian version.  It can take quite a while for upstream to incorporate such
> patches.

John, what distribution are you involved with as a
maintainer or developer?

>> If they are relaying the patch back to the developer, then you don't need
>> Gentoo to do it, since you should be doing it yourself.
>
> You should file your bug report with your distribution and let them forward
> it.  They will know whether the bug is truly in the upstream release or in
> something they have added and will be able to provide more information and
> testing and consolidate multiple reports of the same bug.
>
>> And if a patch is actually useful to a program, it should be folded into
>> the actual program itself.
>
> Yes, but let the distribution forward it.

Not necessarily related to Gentoo copyright assignment
rules, but I'm glad somebody else believes bug reports and
patches should go through the distribution maintainers.
That's how RedHat did it.  However, when I filed a bug
report against Mandriva, I was told _I_ should file a report
against upstream and then wait until the upstream developer
released the fix and the fix was put into the next Mandriva
release.  The Mandriva person didn't want to get involved.

-- 
Robert Riches
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[David Kastrup]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>(4) In other places they claim they're doing this because GNU,
>Debian, and the BSDs are requiring copyright transfer as well
>[1]. Well I know that some GNU projects recommend it (emacs,
>libstdc++), but by far not all; and I have heard first hand that
>Debian not only does not require it, but they don't even have an
>entity one could assign copyright to even if one wanted to. (Does
>anyone know about the BSDs?)
>
> None of the BSDs require copyright assignments.
>
> Requiring copyright assignments is a good practise though.

It depends on how important it is to you to enforce the license.
People using a BSD style license usually do so mainly because they
don't bother too much about what a recipient might do.

Basically, the question is "would you sue for compliance?".  If the
answer is "no, never, and I won't ever transfer my copyrights to
anybody else that would", then there is no point in asking for
copyright assignments.  And actually in this case the point of picking
GPL over BSD license would also be just sending a message rather than
making a legal difference.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   (4) In other places they claim they're doing this because GNU,
   Debian, and the BSDs are requiring copyright transfer as well
   [1]. Well I know that some GNU projects recommend it (emacs,
   libstdc++), but by far not all; and I have heard first hand that
   Debian not only does not require it, but they don't even have an
   entity one could assign copyright to even if one wanted to. (Does
   anyone know about the BSDs?)

None of the BSDs require copyright assignments.

Requiring copyright assignments is a good practise though.  But I
think the Gentoo Foundation could need to polish it a bit so that they
grant back the rights to the person who wrote the code too.

   On a related subject, we have developed a kernel mode driver for
   our Microsoft Wireless Optical Mice with Tilt Wheel Technology,
   complete with device file in /dev and all needed ioctls necessary
   for querying signal strength, battery life status, and other misc.
   statistics, for Linux, that we have now ported to the OpenSolaris
   kernel (hence the xpost to c.u.s). My question is, is the same type
   of copyright transfer needed to get this driver into OpenSolaris
   proper? How would we handle code shared between the Linux and
   OpenSolaris driver?

You should ask the copyright holders of Linux, and respectivley
OpenSolaris.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   You should file your bug report with your distribution and let them
   forward it.  They will know whether the bug is truly in the
   upstream release or in something they have added and will be able
   to provide more information and testing and consolidate multiple
   reports of the same bug.

I suggest people do _not_ do this.  I have already had to check a list
of bugs from Gentoo for a package that I maintain because they didn't
send the patches upstream (patches that were 3 years old at that!).
Major kudoos to the Gentoo people for keeping a nice explanation of
what the patch does, other distributors often ignores this practise
completely.

When sending a bug report send it to the system distributor, and then
check if it presists in the offical version of the package and if so,
send it upstream.

Or even better, ignore the system distributed package completely, and
check bugs against the offical package.  The system distributor will
in either case pull down a new version when it is released, and the
bug will get fixed that way.

   > And if a patch is actually useful to a program, it should be
   > folded into the actual program itself.

   Yes, but let the distribution forward it.

Please don't, it is a really bad practise, and causes headaches for
maintainers.

Cheers.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[David Kastrup]

John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Michael writes:
>
>> And if a patch is actually useful to a program, it should be folded
>> into the actual program itself.
>
> Yes, but let the distribution forward it.

If the distribution claims copyright on the patch, this can prevent it
from being folded into upstream (for example, for FSF-maintained
software requiring assignments).  And the creator of the patch
himself, having his copyright assigned away to Gentoo, will no longer
be able to contribute it to upstream, either.

If several parties will only accept a patch accompanied with a
copyright assignment, the right place to contribute and assign to, in
my opinion, is upstream.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[John Hasler]

Michael writes:
> If the bug is with a program, the patch should go to the program's
> developer.  If they are applying the patch to 3rd party programs, then
> it's basically a fork, a new version of an existing program.

When I receive a bug report on one of my packages with a patch that I think
should be applied I forward it upstream but I also apply it to the next
Debian version.  It can take quite a while for upstream to incorporate such
patches.

> If they are relaying the patch back to the developer, then you don't need
> Gentoo to do it, since you should be doing it yourself.

You should file your bug report with your distribution and let them forward
it.  They will know whether the bug is truly in the upstream release or in
something they have added and will be able to provide more information and
testing and consolidate multiple reports of the same bug.

> And if a patch is actually useful to a program, it should be folded into
> the actual program itself.

Yes, but let the distribution forward it.
-- 
John Hasler 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Installer programs (was: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question)

[CBFalconer]

Michael Black wrote:
> 
... snip ...
> 
> Individual distributions may have their own programs (such as the
> installer programs), and they may compile the rest in different ways,
> but generally there isn't much that is different from the rest.  And
> if a patch is actually useful to a program, it should be folded into
> the actual program itself.

I have a problem with installer programs, in that they hide all the
details of what needs to be done and why.  Once you have those
details down the installer may be very handy, but the fundamentals
need to be available.

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[Alexander Terekhov]

Mike Cox wrote:
[...]
>   http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright/index.xml

"GNU...GNU...GNU...To summarize: copyright assignment refers to 
the process of legally changing the ownership of intellectual 
property".

Hey ueber GNUtian ams, care to educate Gentoonians that 
"intellectual property... is a mirage, which appears to have a 
coherent existence only because the term suggests it does."?

I suspect that Gentoonians heretics also don't paticipate in 
RMS' boycott of Caterpillar, Exxon-Mobil, Coca Cola Company, 
Chinese products, and Harry Potter Books. 

Slow fire!!!

[...]
> How would we handle code shared between the Linux and
> OpenSolaris driver?

What's your next question, Cox?

regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[David Kastrup]

"Mike Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Question to the nice folks in g.m.d...
>
> I have a couple of nice patches I would like to contribute to
> the Gentoo project, but I have some doubts. As some people
> probably already know, Gentoo requires that their contributors
> transfer copyright of all contributed material to the
> Gentoo Foundation, as described here:
>
>   http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright/index.xml
>   http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright/assignment.pdf
>   http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright/assignment.txt
>
> However, some passages in this document seem very suspicious to
> my untrained, non-lawyer, eyes. Could any of the helpful folks in
> g.m.d please take a look and pick it apart. My questions in
> particular.
>
> (1) Why would they need copyright for patches for programs they're
> just packaging, but didn't write themselves? (FAQ item #3)
> The problem I see here once a patch for any 3rd party application
> is submitted to bugs.gentoo.org, Gentoo owns copyright and the
> original contributor loses all rights over their code, including
> the possibility to use it in their own, potentially differently-
> licensed projects. Is it advisable to submit any non-trivial
> patches to Gentoo's bug tracker?

Personal choice.  It does seem curious that there is no reverse grant
to use as desired (which is what the FSF usually does) for one's own
use.

> (2) It says there legal action is only possible if all copyright is
> owned by a single entity. Isn't it rather true that any of the
> copyright holders can take legal action should the need arise?

Correct.  But in particular in the case of patches, a lot of people
might not be interested in pursuing a violation, and the passages for
which they would be suing might be too small to be really
significant.  Also, in case that the defendant has managed to get a
piece with his own copyright in, Gentoo will be unable to proceed
because of "unclean hands".

> (3) They are using the term "Intellectual Property." Isn't that term
> generally frowned upon in the Free Software world?

Pretty much, yes.

> (4) In other places they claim they're doing this because
> GNU, Debian, and the BSDs are requiring copyright transfer as
> well [1]. Well I know that some GNU projects recommend it (emacs,
> libstdc++), but by far not all; and I have heard first hand that
> Debian not only does not require it, but they don't even have an
> entity one could assign copyright to even if one wanted to. (Does
> anyone know about the BSDs?)
>
> Also, it has come to my attention that some of the work
> contributed to Gentoo is grossly missattributed; the most recent
> incident being dealt with in
>
>   http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150231
>
> Here, the writer of said guide (C.M.) complained back in May
> on a Gentoo mailing list that a different guy (who didn't write
> a single word in said document) is listed as the main writer while
> the real writer is only listed as contributor. After nothing
> happened in more than four months, the real writer got rediculed
> as being destructive to the Gentoo community as a whole--just for
> insisting on his copyright. Later on they did give credit--but
> somewhere in a footnote in an appendix, and hoped they would get
> away with it.

Mistakes happen, and there may be more sloppiness than malice involved
at least on the administrative level.  Assignments may keep the buck
rolling even in such situations, even though not rarely with a large
loss of trust and enthusiasm.

> Read more about it here
>
>   http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42130#c5
>
> I checked both and it seems the guy's right. He says he'll reveal
> more "when the time is right."

I don't like strategic games like that.  There is no reason why he
should not report what he feels is wrong right away.

> So here's my question: under these circumstances, how advisable is
> it to submit any patches to bugs.gentoo.org? We do have some fixes
> for two really longstanding bugs, but feel very uncomfortable about
> submitting them to Gentoo, even if it's against the spirit of Free
> Software and all.  What do the experts here think?

If there is significant value in the patches and you want to leverage
them for political pressure, there might be a reason to withhold them.
Personally, I don't really like this sort of power play.  If those
patches would be important to upstream outside of Gentoo, it would not
seem like a good idea to assign them to Gentoo when you might want to
contribute them where they would benefit more people.

I don't see that Gentoo goes against the "spirit of Free Software":
after all, they warrant certain licensing conditions.  But it would
certainly be more reassuring if they provided a grant-back of power,
and if they had clauses in place for the case where Gentoo was
dissolved.

> On a related subject, we have developed a kernel mode driver for our
> Microsoft Wireless Optical Mice with Tilt Wheel Techn

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[Michael Black]

"Mike Cox" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
> Question to the nice folks in g.m.d...
> 
> I have a couple of nice patches I would like to contribute to
> the Gentoo project, but I have some doubts. As some people
> probably already know, Gentoo requires that their contributors
> transfer copyright of all contributed material to the
> Gentoo Foundation, as described here:
> 
>   http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright/index.xml
>   http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright/assignment.pdf
>   http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright/assignment.txt
> 
> However, some passages in this document seem very suspicious to
> my untrained, non-lawyer, eyes. Could any of the helpful folks in
> g.m.d please take a look and pick it apart. My questions in
> particular.
> 
> (1) Why would they need copyright for patches for programs they're
> just packaging, but didn't write themselves? (FAQ item #3)


But then, doesn't that solve the problem?  If the bug is with a program,
the patch should go to the program's developer.  If they are applying
the patch to 3rd party programs, then it's basically a fork, a new
version of an existing program.  If they are relaying the patch back
to the developer, then you don't need Gentoo to do it, since you
should be doing it yourself.

People forget, way too often, that the distributions have far
more in common than they have differences.  They all pull from
the same pool of the kernel, the utilities and the applications.  The
uniqueness of a distribution is over how they do installation, the
philosophy of what they include and exclude, and maybe where they
put things.

Individual distributions may have their own programs (such as the
installer programs), and they may compile the rest in different ways,
but generally there isn't much that is different from the rest.  And
if a patch is actually useful to a program, it should be folded into
the actual program itself.

  Michael
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[John Hasler]

Mike Cox writes:
> It says there legal action is only possible if all copyright is owned by
> a single entity.

Not true.

> In other places they claim they're doing this because ... Debian ... [is]
> requiring copyright transfer as well...

Not true.

> I have heard first hand that Debian not only does not require it, but
> they don't even have an entity one could assign copyright to even if one
> wanted to.

Copyrights could be assigned to SPI but there is no requirement to do so.
-- 
John Hasler 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Gentoo Linux copyright / CDDL question

[Mike Cox]

Question to the nice folks in g.m.d...

I have a couple of nice patches I would like to contribute to
the Gentoo project, but I have some doubts. As some people
probably already know, Gentoo requires that their contributors
transfer copyright of all contributed material to the
Gentoo Foundation, as described here:

  http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright/index.xml
  http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright/assignment.pdf
  http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright/assignment.txt

However, some passages in this document seem very suspicious to
my untrained, non-lawyer, eyes. Could any of the helpful folks in
g.m.d please take a look and pick it apart. My questions in
particular.

(1) Why would they need copyright for patches for programs they're
just packaging, but didn't write themselves? (FAQ item #3)
The problem I see here once a patch for any 3rd party application
is submitted to bugs.gentoo.org, Gentoo owns copyright and the
original contributor loses all rights over their code, including
the possibility to use it in their own, potentially differently-
licensed projects. Is it advisable to submit any non-trivial
patches to Gentoo's bug tracker?

(2) It says there legal action is only possible if all copyright
is owned by a single entity. Isn't it rather true that any of
the copyright holders can take legal action should the need arise?

(3) They are using the term "Intellectual Property." Isn't that
term generally frowned upon in the Free Software world?

(4) In other places they claim they're doing this because
GNU, Debian, and the BSDs are requiring copyright transfer as
well [1]. Well I know that some GNU projects recommend it (emacs,
libstdc++), but by far not all; and I have heard first hand that
Debian not only does not require it, but they don't even have an
entity one could assign copyright to even if one wanted to. (Does
anyone know about the BSDs?)

Also, it has come to my attention that some of the work
contributed to Gentoo is grossly missattributed; the most recent
incident being dealt with in

  http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150231

Here, the writer of said guide (C.M.) complained back in May
on a Gentoo mailing list that a different guy (who didn't write
a single word in said document) is listed as the main writer while
the real writer is only listed as contributor. After nothing
happened in more than four months, the real writer got rediculed
as being destructive to the Gentoo community as a whole--just for
insisting on his copyright. Later on they did give credit--but
somewhere in a footnote in an appendix, and hoped they would get
away with it.

There is also another (unfortunately anonymous) guy who claims
he knows about tons of other such violations, but did only
disclose two so far. Both cases involve patches submitted to
bugs.gentoo.org by 3rd parties that got submitted up stream--
misattributed to Gentoo in the first case and misattributed
to a Gentoo maintainer who did not write it in the other one.
Read more about it here

  http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42130#c5

I checked both and it seems the guy's right. He says he'll reveal
more "when the time is right."

So here's my question: under these circumstances, how advisable
is it to submit any patches to bugs.gentoo.org? We do have some
fixes for two really longstanding bugs, but feel very
uncomfortable about submitting them to Gentoo, even if it's
against the spirit of Free Software and all.
What do the experts here think?



On a related subject, we have developed a kernel mode driver for our
Microsoft Wireless Optical Mice with Tilt Wheel Technology,
complete with device file in /dev and all needed ioctls necessary
for querying signal strength, battery life status, and other misc.
statistics, for Linux, that we have now ported to the OpenSolaris
kernel (hence the xpost to c.u.s). My question is, is the same
type of copyright transfer needed to get this driver into OpenSolaris
proper? How would we handle code shared between the Linux and
OpenSolaris driver?

Thanks,

-- 
Mike Cox (the_real_mike_cox)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss