On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 00:20:36 -0700 "Daniel Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nor do I define the direction of PMS. The requirements define its > > direction, and its contributors (the majority of which are Gentoo > > developers) do the writing. > > But you appear to act as the project lead for PMS.
No, I'm just the one who isn't yet sufficiently jaded by the whole "people who don't know what PMS is jumping in and trying to derail it" thing to have given up discussing it in public yet. The amount of time spent defending PMS from people who don't even know what it is and who haven't bothered to ask to read it could instead have been spent writing an entire new chapter. > > > Paludis does not have a Gentoo Foundation copyright, does PMS? > > > > Not currently, but then neither does devmanual, so it's hardly > > unique in that respect. > > That also means that the devmanual and PMS are not (currently) > official Gentoo projects. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/devmanual.xml The devmanual is an official Gentoo project. > Any official Gentoo project needs to hold a Gentoo Foundation > copyright and be released under the appropriate license - otherwise > it is not being adequately protected. I would be extremely surprised > if this policy has changed. I'd be interested to see where this policy is documented. The licence requirements are in the social contract; what about copyright? As far as I'm aware, copyright requirements are only imposed upon the tree... I'm also curious as to why people should be expected to assign copyright to a group that is known for licence violations and removing attribution from documents. How does this protect anything? -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
