On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 06:39:51 -0500 Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> the policy is not "it must be Gentoo copyright", but "it must have a > header that says Gentoo copyright even though there's no legal basis > for it". Correct, but I have my doubts about the allegedly wobbly legal basis. I do vividly recall reading these: <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright/index.xml> <http://web.archive.org/web/20040604022011/http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/policy.xml> Copyright in ebuilds (and documentation) should always be assigned to Gentoo Technologies. Developers must never put their own names in copyright lines. For more information, please see <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright-assignment.xml> <http://web.archive.org/web/20040624223240/http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright-assignment.xml> (Page moved to <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright/index.xml> <http://web.archive.org/web/20040618235041/http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/copyright/index.xml>) This was the pseudo-legal language in place when I became a developer, and as of this day I still assume all ebuilds' copyright MUST be assigned to the project. The language does seem to have disappeared from the website, though. Regardless, the mechanism was that by way of adding that header, you assign all rights to the Gentoo Foundation, nee Gentoo Technologies. I seem to recall the developer quizzes may have had (or indeed requested) some more information on this matter. I seem to recall the wobbly legal basis assumed that the entire ebuild format was copyrighted, which I would agree is unenforceable. But the language that used to say "all ebuilds' copyrights should be assigned to [Gentoo]" would still hold. Note that I am not talking about QA actions or other trivial stuff that happened in the tree one day here - I'm just wondering where the legal language from 2004 went. jer
