User talk:Alicef/CopyrightPolicy

Docs
Does this apply also to docs? --Aliceinwire (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say so. --ulm (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Licensing of Gentoo projects
From the discussion so far I take that the list of projects should not be in the policy document itself. I suggest the following wording for the section:


 * All Gentoo projects must abide by the Gentoo Social Contract and release their work under a free software license. Distribution of software and documentation under the GNU General Public License, version 2 or later (GPL-2+) and the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 [note: or 4.0? to be discussed] License (CC-BY-SA-3.0) is strongly recommended. Other free software licenses approved by the Open Source Initiative or the Free Software Foundation can be used, if that is necessary for compatibility with upstreams.

As discussed on 2018-01-24 in #gentoo-council (K_F, mgorny, prometheanfire, rich0, ulm):
 * Every Gentoo project must abide by the Gentoo Social Contract and release its work under one or more of the following:
 * The GNU General Public License, version 2 or later (GPL-2+).
 * The Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC-BY-SA-3.0, only for documentation).
 * A license approved as GPL compatible by the Free Software Foundation.
 * Exceptions for other free software licenses will be granted by the Gentoo Foundation on a case by case basis.


 * The license for each project should be documented at Project:Licenses/Licensing of Gentoo projects.

Rationale: CC-BY-SA need to have a version specified. From the social contract. "Creative Commons - Attribution / Share Alike version 2 (or later, at our discretion)" P.S. we still have same artwork with CC-BY-SA-2.5 https://www.gentoo.org/inside-gentoo/artwork/ Aliceinwire (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * GPL-2+ and CC-BY-SA are the licenses explicitly mentioned in the Social Contract, therefore recommend their use.
 * Allow other licenses for upstream compatibility, in order to cover cases like the Vim license used for the Gentoo-syntax project. (Note that the Vim license is FSF approved but not OSI approved, therefore allow licenses approved by OSI or FSF.)

We probably also need apache licenses as have some incompatibility with others licenses (not sure if recently solved) Aliceinwire (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC) --ulm (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The requirement to contact the trustees for adding a new project seems rather bureaucratic. Host the table at a subpage of the Licenses project, so it can be edited by devs. Trustees can still intervene if they see a violation of the Social Contract.

Developer Certificate of Origin
Updated text for the DCO, as proposed in :

Gentoo Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.0

By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:

(a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I have the right to submit it under the free software license indicated in the file; or

(b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate free software license and I have the right under that license to submit that work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part by       me, under the same free software license (unless I am permitted        to submit under a different license), as indicated in the file; or

(c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified it.

I understand and agree that this project and the contribution are public and that a record of the contribution (including all personal   information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with this project or   the free software license(s) involved. The Gentoo DCO is based on the Linux Kernel DCO, released by Open Source Development Labs, Inc. in 2005 under a CC-BY-SA-2.5 License, and distributed by the Linux Foundation as part of the kernel source tree under GPL-2.

Rationale: --ulm (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Formatting fixed to follow logical structure: The contributor will certify one of the points "a", "b", or "c". The paragraph below the list (which was point "d" in the Linux DCO) is independent of the rest, and isn't part of the logical or.
 * The social contract says "free software" throughout, so we should use this term (rather than "open source") for consistency. The FLA draft also says "free software".