[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Why does the FSF need copyright *assignments*?
From: |
Bernd Jendrissek |
Subject: |
Why does the FSF need copyright *assignments*? |
Date: |
Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:54:40 +0200 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi all
Why do GNU projects require copyright *assignments* to the FSF before
being able to accept contributions?
I thought one of the principal purposes of the GPL was to allow the
creation of derivative works. Why isn't it sufficient for a contributor
to simply slap the GPL on their patch, which project maintainers can then
simply apply to create a derivative work?
I'm guessing the problem is that the rights to the derivative work are
owned *jointly* by the authors of the two works, and that this complicates
legal action should it become necessary. Is this correct?
There are two separate issues here - let me be clear about what I'm asking:
1. Transfer of ownership of the rights to a work (the patch)
2. Keeping record that the contributor indeed has the rights so s/he can
licence it at all.
For this message, I don't care about 2 - I want to know why 1 is necessary.
bernd, who started appreciating the FSF bureaucracy in a big way ever
since the SCO vs. The World farce started.
- --
http://voyager.abite.co.za/~berndj/ - at last it even exists!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE/JPLS/FmLrNfLpjMRAmOnAJ9RiXsGgMH5Ubm7ykMsIYQb83ylhACfT2jc
fg+RuR8opfusA+w1PeHc2bk=
=IhZz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Why does the FSF need copyright *assignments*?,
Bernd Jendrissek <=