On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 22:13 -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
> That is: No hidden direct or contributory Copyright ('related
> copyright') infringements. Trimmed Changelogs leaving a
> pointer (attribution) back to its prior source and making
> forked content in software bearing a FOSS license -- fine, **
> so long as there is attribution **; silent lifts, fileing off
> all identifiers, and passing off code written by another as
> one's own -- nope.
In the event that you (or anyone) comes across a Fedora contribution
which has its copyright attribution removed, please let someone at
Fedora know the specifics (you can email me directly if you'd like, or
appropriate mailing lists, like this one).
As you've pointed out, our CLA explicitly forbids this.
However, I would like to point out that changelog entries on their own
are almost certainly not considered copyright, and parties interested in
ensuring proper copyright attribution for spec files (which may not even
be copyrightable, but I digress) should consider including a statement
similar to:
Copyright (C) 2007 John Doe <jdoe@xxxxxxxx>
By no means am I advocating the stripping of changelog entries as part
of the attempt to obscure/remove the origination of the spec file,
however, in the course of the lifecycle of an RPM package, it is not
unreasonable to assume that older changelog entries may be deleted or
archived outside of the spec file.
Or, to put it simply:
If you're the author of a spec file, and you think the spec file
constitutes a copyrightable work under the laws of your immediate
locale, then you should include a copyright attribution statement in
your spec file. Anyone in Fedora caught intentionally removing copyright
attributions will be severely punished.
~spot
*****
Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately
explained by stupidity"
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
