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

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>> 
>> > "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The FSF is the exclusive, and soul copyright holder of all parts in
>> >> GCC.  They can choose to do whatever they want with IBM's code, they
>> >> are the copyright holders of said code, not IBM.
>> >
>> > Hey dak, call 911 for comrade ams.
>> >
>> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2000-07/msg00181.html
>> > (assignment of gcc patches)
>> >
>> > -----
>> > IBM reserves and retains for the benefit of itself and its subsidiaries
>> > and affiliated companies a nonexclusive, worldwide, irrevocable, fully
>> > paid up right and license
>> 
>> Well, if IBM remained the copyright holder, they would not need to get
>
> IBM didn't remain the copyright holder, but FSF just can't be
> exclusive licensor

Well, reread what Alfred wrote above.  "exclusive copyright holder".
Not "exclusive licensor".

> (default for copyright owner) because IBM retained all the rights
> except the right to sue for copyright infringement:

Well, yes, that was part of the assignment contract.

> IBM can still sue for breach of contract,

Certainly.  There would be little point in making a contract if you
could not enforce it.

> enforce any enforceable license (apart from the GPL magic which
> boils down to "enforcement" via retroactive termination with only
> copyright claim left after complete nullification of potentially
> invalid -- in part or in whole -- contract; that's according to
> GPL-moronized district courts in Munich and Frankfurt) against any
> IBM's licensees and authorize others (sublicensors) to do the same.

Whatever.  I don't see where you would contradict Alfred Szmidt with
regard to the FSF becoming the copyright holder.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum