Regarding copyright notices for files contributed to Savannah,
you must state that you are the copyright holder. Unless you've
properly
assigned copyright for your work to the FSF (which is possible), you
are the copyright holder of new files, not the FSF. The license notice
that you include shows that the file is released under the GNU GPL and
this is enough of a protection. Since you're doing this work on your
spare time, no employer can claim that he is the copyright holder and
we are safe.
The primary reason for assigning all copyright to the FSF is
to allow her to better defend it when a violation occurs. However, in
the case of Savannah, VA Software is the copyright holder of most of
the files and this strategy cannot be implemented. There is therefore
little interest in assigning copyright to the FSF in this specific
case.
In fact, it was easier and faster to me to directly assign this
copyright to the FSF.
I don't really understand why "this strategy cannot be implemented".
VA Software is the copyright holder of most of the files, right : what
differences it makes if others files are copyrighted by me or the FSF ?
The fact is that the copyright is used to give copyleft. So the main
point in licensing issue is the fact that savannah is completely
copyleft, as GPLed, not the fact that copyright holder is someone or
each other.
In a few words, I dont really understand why it's not acceptable that
FSF get copyright of files I've added. ". There is therefore little
interest in assigning copyright to the FSF in this specific case",
right, but there is also little interest in assigning copyright to me,
since the main point is keeping it GPL.
--
Mathieu Roy
* http://savannah.gnu.org/users/yeupou
* http://yeupou.coleumes.org
* http://gpg.coleumes.org (GPG Key)
