RJack <u...@example.net> writes: > As the SFLC and Erik Andersen are learning to their dismay, a valid > Copyright Office registration of an open source project such as a > version of BusyBox requires the registration of all the *individual* > contributors' work all the way back to the original author's initial > contribution. In order for a complex and evolving derivative work "as a > whole" to be registered, each recursive, preexisting version must also > be registered -- a virtually impossible task when multiple authors are > involved see for example:
[...] > The chances of a GPL project's enforcement in a federal court is dead > long before the judge ever reads the GPL. The respective chances for success of copyright enforcement in court are what causes the FSF to get copyright assignments for key pieces of GNU software, pretty much from the start of when the GPL has been designed. So it is not exactly news for them or the SFLC that distributed copyright makes for rougher sailing. There is no indication so far, however, that anything is going amiss here. That the situation leaves more to fantasize about for our resident legal nincompoops (as witnessed by their quite-worse-than-random prediction track records) until the case closes is not actually cause for worry. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss