+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 Freem
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 "Gen
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
> > p
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
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
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
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
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 sig
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 t
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
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 copy
> 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 cop
> 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
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 does
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 o
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 a
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
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
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 probl
> 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
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 s
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 l
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
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
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 copyr
25 matches
Mail list logo
