Re: Evolution copyright assignment: Storm in a teacup

On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 13:01 -0700, Sriram Ramkrishna wrote:
> So, let me get this straight.  You're position is that by assigning 
> copyright to a single entity that entity; be it whomever, can relicense
> to the code as propriety or something non-GPL correct?

No. They can do that because you agree to let them do that by signing
that contract.

> Do you believe that they can do this despite a legal agreement that the
> code will be licensed as free software in addition to proprietary?

It's not despite it. It's because of it. And there's no "addition":
2.1 might be some Free Software license, 2.2 might be 100% proprietary.
After all, 2.1 already made available under a Free Software license.

> A legal agreement is binding.  An entity is obligated by law to follow
> through.


> I'm not seeing where the license is being circumvented.

Simple. You can't circunvent it if you don't own all the copyrights.
So you collect them all in order to have the right to do it.

And in One Assignment, bind them.

>   The only reason
> I can see you saying that is that you're being a purist and do not want
> any proprietary forks associated the original GPL'd codebase regardless
> of whether the code is also GPL'd as well.  Is that your position?

That's not puritanism. It's the intention of the GPL.


+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]