Am 21.12.2013 um 11:40 schrieb David Chisnall: > > On 21 Dec 2013, at 10:05, Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hm. I start to wonder why is the copyright assignment needed at all to get >> code into GNUstep? > > The FSF requires copyright assignment for two reasons. The first is that > they may wish to change the license.
Well, why should that be done? > We've done this in GNUstep in the past, moving some GPL'd code to LGPL when > it was moved from an application into a library (this would be simplified by > making all of the GNUstep tools LGPLv2.1 or later, which would also simplify > distribution, but that's another issue). Ok, I see - but how often does it happen? And in that case (by using the signed-off:) it is not too difficult to identify the authors. > > The more important issue is that only the copyright holder has standing to > sue for copyright infringement. If someone uses GNUstep code in violation of > the license, we'd probably like the FSF to chase them. They can't do this > nearly as easily if the copyright is held by a group of individuals. There's > also the related issue that if someone reaches a settlement with the FSF no > one else can sue them over the same bit of code. This is a problem for > Linux, because a few kernel devs are somewhat obsessive about the GPL and > have a habit of suing companies over GPL violations, but even if you settle > with them there's no guarantee that no other kernel devs will sue you. The > FSF, as part of a settlement, sells a retroactive commercial license for FSF > software, so at the end of losing a case against them you have the the > license that you need and no one else can sue you. This is a big stick that > helps them in negotiation. Ok I see. But isn't that theoretical? How many such cases did exist in the past 10 years? And how many patches and developers did we loose because of missing assignment? > So, while copyright assignment is annoying, it's likely required as long as > GNUstep is distributed under a restrictive license. I always thought that GPL is not restrictive... Except one thing that nobody can change the licence of someone else's code. > It's less important for the runtime, which is MIT licensed, because you have > to try really hard to violate the MIT license... Ok, I see. Nikolaus _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
