David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 (default for copyright owner) because IBM retained all the rights except the right to sue for copyright infringement: IBM can still sue for breach of contract, 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. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
