Re: Repos

[Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller]

Am 21.12.2013 um 11:40 schrieb David Chisnall:

> 
> On 21 Dec 2013, at 10:05, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@goldelico.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hm. I start to wonder why is the copyright assignment needed at all to get 
>> code into GNUstep?
> 
> The FSF requires copyright assignment for two reasons.  The first is that 
> they may wish to change the license.

Well, why should that be done?

>  We've done this in GNUstep in the past, moving some GPL'd code to LGPL when 
> it was moved from an application into a library (this would be simplified by 
> making all of the GNUstep tools LGPLv2.1 or later, which would also simplify 
> distribution, but that's another issue).

Ok, I see - but how often does it happen? And in that case (by using the 
signed-off:) it is not too difficult to identify the authors.

> 
> The more important issue is that only the copyright holder has standing to 
> sue for copyright infringement.  If someone uses GNUstep code in violation of 
> the license, we'd probably like the FSF to chase them.  They can't do this 
> nearly as easily if the copyright is held by a group of individuals.  There's 
> also the related issue that if someone reaches a settlement with the FSF no 
> one else can sue them over the same bit of code.  This is a problem for 
> Linux, because a few kernel devs are somewhat obsessive about the GPL and 
> have a habit of suing companies over GPL violations, but even if you settle 
> with them there's no guarantee that no other kernel devs will sue you.  The 
> FSF, as part of a settlement, sells a retroactive commercial license for FSF 
> software, so at the end of losing a case against them you have the the 
> license that you need and no one else can sue you.  This is a big stick that 
> helps them in negotiation.

Ok  I see. But isn't that theoretical? How many such cases did exist in the 
past 10 years? And how many patches and developers did we loose because of 
missing assignment?

> So, while copyright assignment is annoying, it's likely required as long as 
> GNUstep is distributed under a restrictive license.  

I always thought that GPL is not restrictive... Except one thing that nobody 
can change the licence of someone else's code.

> It's less important for the runtime, which is MIT licensed, because you have 
> to try really hard to violate the MIT license...

Ok, I see.

Nikolaus