Am Montag 16 Februar 2015, 13:05:54 schrieb Rich Freeman: > > Another option is remove that header and just state that all the .ebuild > > are under $license in a simpler way... > > As I said in my other email, that might be a simpler way to go. Of > course, does that make it acceptable to strip the copyright notice if > it is already there? It seems like this caused a huge stir the last > time the topic came up, which makes it possible that we end up with > all kinds of random notices in random files which may or may not > reflect the actual copyright status of the tree at the moment. The > topic that originally raised this issue was the importing of files > that already had copyright notices into a Gentoo repository, and the > question of what to do with them.
I'm all for writing down new rules to simplify this, since the current state *is* kinda ugly. So here's a simple question: If a file is released under the correct license (which we could require, e.g. as a first line comment / license statement, similar to today's header), why is the copyright owner or the copyright statement even relevant? Can't we just only require the correct license statement and leave all copyright statements as they are in whatever form? (I mean, committing from Germany where only *natural* persons can be entitled to copyright, this is silly anyway...) -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer perl, office, comrel, council
