Re: Another job for the Gnome Foundation ?

[Brian Behlendorf <brian collab net>]

On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, Jim Gettys wrote:
> So in fact, I think given recent experience, that it would be best if
> sole copyright not normally go to a gnome foundation, but that the gnome
> foundation be able to become joint owner easily.

I don't think sole copyright is necessary; if the point of getting
copyright assignment is so the gnome foundation can protect the interests
of the developers and provide a shield for copyright/patent suits, for
example, then it shouldn't matter that someone else also has a copyright
on the code.

However, there is a difference between dual ownership and
"joint" ownership, and I'm pretty sure we don't want
joint ownership; dual ownership is simply that two entities have their
own independent copyright on the code, joint implies that any
copyright-related decision about the code needs to be made by both
parties together.  

Finally, with this code being GPL, I don't understand the concern that
any entity, be it the Gnome foundation, or openoffice.org, or whoever gets
copyright, being able to "run away" with the code; they can change the
license, but they aren't able to keep anyone from using, enhancing, and
redistributing older versions under the GPL.

	Brian