Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Linus' gang: "abandon the current GPLv3 process before it becomes too late"

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > IBM didn't remain the copyright holder, but FSF just can't be
> > exclusive licensor
> 
> Well, reread what Alfred wrote above.  "exclusive copyright holder".

Yeah, as if copyright ownership can be non-exclusive (in the sense of 
suing strangers -- not parties to license contracts). It all started in 
response to my statement that employer is either legally-recognized 
author or exclusive licensor (the former being US work-for-hire, and the 
later being the default for (not work-for-hire) authors... who may also 
have *inalienable* moral rights; mostly in Europe, that is). Do you know 
what "exclusive licensor" means? It means that only that legal person 
can grant licensees (the right may be limited to a field of use or 
geographic territory). And with respect to assigned stuff, the FSF is 
neither exclusive licensor nor author (in regards to inalienable moral 
rights).

regards,
alexander.