Re: Copyright assignment
- From: Miguel de Icaza <miguel ximian com>
- To: Alan Cox <alan lxorguk ukuu org uk>
- Cc: Vincent Untz <vincent vuntz net>, Toni Willberg <toniw iki fi>, foundation-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Copyright assignment
- Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 20:44:35 -0400
> > Notice that the same thing happens with any other copyright
> > assignments, like the FSF: I can not include in GCC a chunk of code
> > that might be genuinely useful if the copyright is not transfered to
> > them and the code must be part of gcc.
> Indeed - it is one of the big problems. Right now we beat the
> proprietary folks in part by writing only two rather than ten of
> everything (clocks, window managers and cd players excepted).
> In the FSF case it isnt usually a problem because other pure free
> free software projects generally don't have a problem with FSF owned
> code because the FSF is trusted and dealing with one repository of
> other ownership doesn't bother people much.
So in the few cases where you are able to assign copyright to the FSF
your statement would hold true. I maintain that most third party
software that you might want to plug into a GNU project will not have
all the authors around, or will have a different license, or will not
agree to relicense to the FSF.
Lets take an example: reusing chunks of the Linux kernel into the GNU
Hurd. It is going to be almost impossible to have all the authors of a
piece of Linux kernel assign the copyright to the FSF for inclusion in
the Hurd, unless the copyright assignment requirement is dropped.
So we can discuss this all day: you can show me cases where it is not
the case, and I can show you cases where it is.
You proved your point, and I am telling you that the same applies
elsewhere (and I think I proved my point).
] [Thread Prev