%% Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This is _exactly_ why the FSF requires copyright assignment. Done
>> this way there is absolutely no question who owns the entirety of
>> the program. If you care about this, that's the only way to go.
psg> I'd like the FSF to _not_ do this. I think free software is made
psg> _stronger_ by multiple copyright holders. If I release GPL'ed
psg> code and accept a ton of patches, then I can't easily turn that
psg> code into non-GPL code in a future version. That makes the code
psg> more likely to remain GPLed. There's code I wrote which will
psg> _never_ be part of Emacs because there's no way I'll ever want to
psg> track down patch contributors to get them to sign any legal
psg> paperwork.
You're missing the point. Have you bothered to ask the FSF (or anyone
associated with it) _why_ they require assignment? It's not to create
legal paperwork, it's not so they get the "glory" of "owning" the entire
thing [*], etc.
It's for two very important reasons: first, it's because in the U.S., at
least, if you don't have copyright on a work you have no legal standing
to take someone to court for violating the copyright. The FSF's
position in a court case (if it were to ever come to that) is immensely
strengthened and simplified by virtue of being the sole copyright
owner. As such, they have much more legal clout they can use to _avoid_
court.
Second, without an assignment from your employer it's quite possible
that the employer will retroactively invalidate the release of the code.
Since (most) employers actually own the copyright on much of the work
their employees produce, they can say that your assignment wasn't legal
since you didn't actually own the work. This would mean a messy and
painful process of extracting all the tainted code, perhaps there for a
number of releases. This sort of thing has actually happened, on more
than one occasion.
While copyright assignment might seem to weaken the GPL's implied
guarantee by collecting all copyright under one entity, it's actually
done to _strengthen_ the protections on GPL'd code.
psg> The GPL offers us great protection. The FSF demanding copyright
psg> transfer to them is saying that what's good enough for the rest
psg> of us isn't good enough for them. Simple GPL protection isn't
psg> good enough for them. I don't like it.
The GPL only offers protection in the corporate world if there is a
credible threat of legal action behind it. Copyright assignment, along
with the FSF's displayed willingness to take up the legal challenge, is
what makes that threat credible.
IANAL, of course.
[*] Perhaps you didn't realize this, but when you assign copyright to
the FSF they actually grant you right back all those rights you just
assigned to them. If you give code to the FSF you can still take
your copy and make it commercial (I think you have to give the FSF
30 days' notice or something) if you want.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Network Management Development
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
