On Sun, 2007-07-22 at 12:49 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: > Marius Mauch wrote: > > While I think this would be an excellent move, there are a few topics > > that concern me a bit: > > 1) just to be sure, did someone check the transfer agreement between the > > Foundation and the old Gentoo, Inc for potential problems? > > 2) what would this mean for our copyright situation? In detail: > > a) who would (legally) own the copyright? > > b) what would (in theory) be involved if we'd want to enforce/change > > the license? > > c) if the copyright were owned by the Conservancy, would we have to > > change our copyright headers (in existing and/or new files)? > > It might be worth noting that it appears that Gentoo would be the first > distribution to join. I'd be interested in knowing if the SFC considers > distributing closed-source or proprietary software (nero, ati/nvidia > drivers, vmware) to be "producing non-free software (as per the > Conservancy's charitable purpose)" as mentioned in section 2(b) of their > notes. Paragraph 2(a) seems to prohibit it. > > > a. The Project Will Be Free Software. The Conservancy and the Project > > agree that > > any software distributed by the Project will be distributed solely as > > Free Software. > > If that's not a problem I think this is a great idea.
Well, we'd be the second distribution, as Debian uses the SFC. Also, realize that we've already gone through all of this with the SFC and wouldn't even be bringing it up as an option if the SFC hadn't already approved us. They are aware of the state of our tree and that we do ship *ebuilds* for proprietary software. Remember that we don't distribute closed-source software, we distribute *ebuilds* for said software. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
