Re: Repos

[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.  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).

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.

So, while copyright assignment is annoying, it's likely required as long as 
GNUstep is distributed under a restrictive license.  It's less important for 
the runtime, which is MIT licensed, because you have to try really hard to 
violate the MIT license...

David




-- Sent from my Difference Engine