Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote: >> > [...] >> >> In this case, the FSF is the legally-recognised author and the >> >> exclusive licensor. They hold the copyright. >> > >> > AFAIK, the FSF isn't exclusive licensor of assigned stuff. >> >> They grant you a sublicense for arbitrary use under any license you >> choose. > > Read again the quoted snipped from the IBM assignment letter, > retard.
You'll have to pardon me, oh highly intelligent one, but I _do_ have such an agreement of reverse assignment for projects of mine I assigned to the FSF. I happen not to be IBM, and most posters on this list probably aren't either, so likely the assignment contract I entered with the FSF would appear more relevant for private persons. > Was it really that special? Likely, yes. > How about this part: > > "The Foundation agrees that all of its distributions of the Transferred > Work, or of any work "based on the Transferred Work" (that is any work > that in whole or in part incorporates or is derived from all or part of > the Transferred Work), shall be under a version of the Foundation's > General Public License, Lesser General Public License or Library > General Public License (collectively "LGPL")." Well, in my latest contract here I don't think the licenses have been spelled out, instead a guarantee about nothing being distributed under terms where the recipient has less rights than a specified minimal set was given. It it likely that the forms have changed over time, and also based on the entity that is involved: more likely than not, the law departments of large corporations will raise objections to an off-the-shelf reverse license. There is a reason that "copyright clerk" is a regular job at the FSF. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
