Re: Licensing and copyright

[Jean-Michel POURE <jm poure com>]

Le Mardi 24 Février 2004 09:41, Richard Stallman a écrit :
> We don't do it this way because it would make no sense.  Part of the
> purpose of getting copyright assignments is to have just one copyright
> holder.

The question of "one copyright holder" is a central issue.

Some people on the list wrote that a judge could not rewrite a contract. IMHO, 
in some cases, a judge may rewrite a contract.

For example, whenever a contract does not comply with law, it can be rewritten 
because law is superior to contracts.

At least, the modified contract will apply in the United-States.

Examples that come to my mind (there are probably many others) :

- in 20 years, Free Software may well be installed on 90% of computers. Then, 
what can stop Microsoft from using anti-trust laws and breaking the FSF 
assets into pieces? Can you be sure it will never happen?

- The United-States have become a financial economy with a 500 billion dollars 
trade deficit and fake growth figures. Every month, 30 billion are flowing 
out of Europe. The Dollar is sinking. In a few years, what can stop a judge 
from deciding that Free Software is an illegal concurrence for American 
companies, just to boost foreign trade?

- Other cases of war, revolution and counter-revolution, mass-terrorism may 
also be taken into consideration. At least some Americans believe they should 
(please do not comment this, I really don't know).

The pros and cons of concentrating ownership in a single entity (be it the 
FSF) and in a single country (be it the United-States) need to be studied in 
more details. Probably by a professor in law.

Until then, "several copyright holders, several countries" would be my 
preffered choice. 

Cheers,
Jean-Michel