Piotr Jaroszy?ski wrote:
> On Saturday 24 of March 2007 13:54:51 Michael Cummings wrote:
>> Ditto. Gentoo SoC projects need to be for Gentoo developed and sponsored
>> code/projects, not third party projects, no matter how much they would
>> whither and die without a gentoo core. There was an example of
>> gentoo+gnome integration (i think) in a previous email - that wouldn't be
>> any more appropriate. Unless there's the Gentoo Inc copyright in the
>> header, it isn't eligible in my opinion.
<..>
> Google seems to concern more about the FOSS community than the
> organizations' copyright in the header and imho that's a good thing.
> Gentoo is supposed to be a _mentoring_ organization, so the only question
> is whether Gentoo mentors are capable of mentoring a project or not.
>
Umm there clearly isn't any consensus on that last phrase. Other devs appear
concerned about Gentoo copyright, which seems reasonable given the
requirement to maintain the interests of the distro as a whole.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> On Saturday 24 of March 2007 13:54:51 Michael Cummings wrote:
>> Ditto. Gentoo SoC projects need to be for Gentoo developed and sponsored
>> code/projects, not third party projects, no matter how much they would
>> whither and die without a gentoo core. There was an example of
>> gentoo+gnome integration (i think) in a previous email - that wouldn't be
>> any more appropriate. Unless there's the Gentoo Inc copyright in the
>> header, it isn't eligible in my opinion.
<..>
> Google seems to concern more about the FOSS community than the
> organizations' copyright in the header and imho that's a good thing.
> Gentoo is supposed to be a _mentoring_ organization, so the only question
> is whether Gentoo mentors are capable of mentoring a project or not.
>
Umm there clearly isn't any consensus on that last phrase. Other devs appear
concerned about Gentoo copyright, which seems reasonable given the
requirement to maintain the interests of the distro as a whole.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list