On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 10:24:55AM +0100, Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > That's a realistic worry, although if all those people license > their code under GPL, they cannot revoke that license and stop > distribution of the program. A bigger issue is if in the future > the project wants to change the license. Then they have to ask > everyone permission.
The problem here is exactly that. Assignment is a double edged sword. Assignment makes it easier for one individual to litigate against people who violate the license (which means violating the copyright). But it also permits the assignee to change the license for future releases in any manner which they please. Including proprietary licenses that perhaps the majority of contributors may not be inclined to agree to. This is true because the GPL does not apply to the owner of a copyrighted work as long as they own the entire work. If they don't own the entire work it becomes rather complex. They'd more than likely have to receive permissions from all the people who do own the rights. They might be able to remove the parts that they didn't own. But even this wouldn't be easy, as parts of the code they have written may be considered derivative works of the code they don't own. Unfortunately, what is and is not a derivative work is a pretty fuzzy line. GNU projects require assignment of copyright to the FSF. In this case it is very unlikely (arguably impossible) that code would be relicensed in any manner that is inconsistent with the GPL. Though some people might even argue this point. However, in this particular case the assignee is not the FSF but the primary author of the application. There is no way to be sure of the author's future motives as you can with the FSF. He may be hired by a commercial software firm who pays him a large sum of money to turn the application closed source and work on it for them. But even if you assume or trust the author to only have good motives you can not assume that his successors in interest will be. Copyrights live on past death and as a result pass to the authors heirs. Those heirs could do anything they want with the software. Including selling it. While it is true that the license provided by the GPL can not be revoked unless you do not comply with the terms, i.e. the released code would be available to the world to use forever, including continuing to make new derivatives licensed under the GPL. It is also true that most people using the GPL do so because the wish to disallow the commercial use of their code without the reciprocal release of source code. Assignment in this case subverts this wish and expectation. The author in this case could will the software to the FSF upon their death. That would certainly avoid the issue of successors (presuming the will is properly done). However, if they're going to will it to the FSF why not just assign all the code to them now? Or possibly some other organization if they don't like the politics of the FSF. I personally don't think assignment is necessary. I find find the motives of people requiring assignment to them personally to be highly suspect. I wouldn't contribute to a project that required that. -- Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://ben.reser.org "Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking." - H.L. Mencken -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3