Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU copyright assignment

[James Blackwell]

>>>>>> "James" == James Blackwell <address@hidden> writes:
>
>    James> These are both _very_ important questions, as can be proved
>    James> by the ongoing SCO vs. The World copyright case with the
>    James> Linux kernel.

Stephen Turnbull:
> That's a non sequitur.  Last I looked, SCO was making clearly[1]
> frivolous claims that IBM inter alia "contributed" code that SCO
> "owned".  All an assignment would have done is made it possible for
> Linus to sue IBM if he loses to SCO, just like the FSF has the right
> to sue you for code you've assigned to them if somebody else proves
> it's not yours.  It would have done nothing to prevent SCO from making
> obviously frivolous claims.

Yes, it does follow. The point isn't that SCO will win, just that people
have (or will) be pulled into court. For example, depositions.

>    James> I personally don't want to get hauled into court 24 months
>    James> from now because some guy named Barry McLoy tries to make a
>    James> 70 yard punt as a last ditch effort to save his business.
>
> What makes you think that you're protected by an assignment?  The FSF
> will defend the code, but as far as the assignment I signed (and the
> URL Zenaan posted) is concerned, WE are on our own, brothers.  In
> fact, if the FSF _loses_ based on our code, _we_ get to pay any
> damages and expenses ("hold harmless and indemnify", now them's strong
> words, podnah).

I almost misread this backwards. I didn't mean to imply that I'd be
protected by assignment (in fact, I never thought much about the issue). 

The point I'm trying to make is that if FSF assignment isn't done
properly, with all of the ducks in a row, that there certainly would
still be vulnerability.

-- 
James Blackwell          Try something fun: For the next 24 hours, give
Smile more!              each person you meet a compliment!

GnuPG (ID 06357400) AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D  247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400