Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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
Well, reread what Alfred wrote above. "exclusive copyright holder". Not "exclusive licensor". > (default for copyright owner) because IBM retained all the rights > except the right to sue for copyright infringement: Well, yes, that was part of the assignment contract. > IBM can still sue for breach of contract, Certainly. There would be little point in making a contract if you could not enforce it. > 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. Whatever. I don't see where you would contradict Alfred Szmidt with regard to the FSF becoming the copyright holder. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
