JTK wrote:
>
> Frank Hecker wrote:
> >
> > JTK wrote:
> > > Ian Hickson wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >>This is why the Free Software Foundation ask that you reassign your
> > >>copyright to them on any code that you contribute to their projects -- it
> > >>makes the legal process of defending the GPL a lot easier.
> > >>
> > >> http://www.fsf.org/licenses/why-assign.html
> > >>
> > >
> > > Right, so why does AOL presumably *not* do that?
> >
> > Why doesn't AOL assign copyright to the FSF? Presumably because AOL has
> > a business interest in having the Mozilla code released under a license
> > under than the GPL, and presumably the FSF would not have been willing
> > to release the Mozilla code under the NPL or even the MPL, since the FSF
> > has a vested interest in promoting the GPL.
> >
>
> Nonono, why does AOL not require you to assign copyright of the code you
> contribute to Mozilla over to *AOL*? From what I gather, they don't.
1. AOL was not a party to that decision. Netscape, prior to the AOL
deal, made that decision to satisfy concerns of outside developers.
2. It would have been a problem for major corporate developers wishing
to participate in the project.
3. Why would that be important? Under the terms of the license, it can
be enforced no matter who holds copyrights.
Chuck
--
... The times have been,
That, when the brains were out,
the man would die. ... Macbeth
Chuck Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED]
