Re: Licensing and copyright
- From: James Henstridge <james daa com au>
- To: jm poure com
- Cc: Rob Adams <readams readams net>, foundation-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Licensing and copyright
- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:07:15 +0800
On 22/02/2004 8:34 PM, Jean-Michel POURE wrote:
Before guessing about the worst case senario of what might happen to
code you donate to the FSF, maybe it would be a good idea to review the
standard assignment agreement they use. I can't find an up to date
version, but here is a copy I found on a mailing list:
Worst case scenario 2:
"After receiving a copyright assessment, the FSF becomes the sole owner of
the original work. If one day the FSF is forced to pay a large sum of money,
for example in case of patent infringement, the judge may decide to use any
means to revover the money, including rewriting the licenses and later
Trust is not the issue, I only prefer to live by my own country rules. We can
only fight and defend Free Software at an international level.
The FSF agreement is not one sided like some agreements. In exchange
for assigning your copyright, they promise to (a) release it under a
copyleft (see the actual form for exact wording), and (b) grant
non-exclusive rights to you to do whatever you want with your work (ie.
you can do pretty much whatever you want with your code after assignment).
If the FSF went evil and took all the code people had assigned and made
it proprietary, they would be breaking their promises in the assignment
contract. If the contract was voided then the ownership of the code
would revert to the original owner, which would mean they had no right
to change the license on the code.
This means that you _don't have_ to trust the FSF completely when
assigning code. When you think about it, this would also make it
impossible for them to relicense all of their code under an "evil GPL
Email: james daa com au
] [Thread Prev