Re: Source licensing

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Mon May 10 2004 - 13:08:02 CDT

On May 10, 2004, at 1:55 PM, Arthur Keller wrote:
>>> Linus Torvalds was not anywhere near so careful, hence the legal
>>> fight with SCO.
> I think you misinterpret my statement. Did Linus Torvalds get written
> license agreements from contributors and their employers for every
> contribution?

I was objecting to the "hence the fight with SCO" part. The spurious
suit would not have been affected one way or the other by copyright
assignments by contributors. After all, if you want to invent claims,
it's not hard to invent the claim that a copyright assigner lacked the
original copyright (hence invalidating the assignment).

In any case, I do not think that all the tools distributed by FSF have
explicit FSF assignment. Many do, and they encourage that. But I
don't think it's a prerequisite. Am I wrong about this? A few clicks
near http://www.fsf.org/directory/ don't find a non-FSF copyright, I
confess, but there are thousands of packages there.

Even if the packages listed at the above URL are all "(c) FSF", they
certainly depend on non-FSF tools. For example, there are a number of
Perl packages there, and Perl isn't copyright-assigned to FSF.
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Mon May 31 23:17:31 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:16 CDT