> > My understanding is that the FSF requires copyright assignments in > > order to give themselves the ability to most effectively defend the > > community against poachers and legal attacks. > > It seems perfectly plausible to me that the reason you cite was never > the sole motivation for this policy, though it may have been the most > frequently and publicly articulated one.
Sure, and it's also perfectly plausible that RMS is a secret employee of Microsoft and Chinese double agent plotting the use of free software to assassinate the Dalai Lama. But this is debian-legal not debian-wacko-conspiracy-theory. Given the FSF's highly successful GPL enforcement activities and prescient concern with optimizing the community's legal position, and RMS's track record of both contributing to and founding the community, it seems like Occam's razor dictates taking the FSF's explanation for requesting assignments at face value. Consider the current SCO/IBM brouhaha - it's a shame the FSF doesn't have assignments for the Linux kernel which would put it in a position to stand up for the community against SCO's bullying. It is no coincidence that SCO chose to attack something that the FSF doesn't have legal paperwork on.
