To: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU copyright assignment
References: <87vfd5xhe0.fsf@flame.org> <20041020214600.GA624@merconline.com>
	<1098313404.5336.26.camel@whiskas.cashpoolcomps.com>
	<20041021040031.CFF3485D7A@comet.merconline.com>
Organization: The XEmacs Project
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:36:11 +0900
In-Reply-To: <20041021040031.CFF3485D7A@comet.merconline.com> (James
	Blackwell's message of "Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:00:31 -0400")
Message-ID: <87wtxk2qpw.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.5 (chayote, linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Precedence: list
Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Status: RO
Content-Length: 3003
Lines: 66
>>>>> "James" == James Blackwell <jblack@merconline.com> writes:

    James> These are both _very_ important questions, as can be proved
    James> by the ongoing SCO vs. The World copyright case with the
    James> Linux kernel.

That's a non sequitur.  Last I looked, SCO was making clearly[1]
frivolous claims that IBM inter alia "contributed" code that SCO
"owned".  All an assignment would have done is made it possible for
Linus to sue IBM if he loses to SCO, just like the FSF has the right
to sue you for code you've assigned to them if somebody else proves
it's not yours.  It would have done nothing to prevent SCO from making
obviously frivolous claims.

    James> I personally don't want to get hauled into court 24 months
    James> from now because some guy named Barry McLoy tries to make a
    James> 70 yard punt as a last ditch effort to save his business.

What makes you think that you're protected by an assignment?  The FSF
will defend the code, but as far as the assignment I signed (and the
URL Zenaan posted) is concerned, WE are on our own, brothers.  In
fact, if the FSF _loses_ based on our code, _we_ get to pay any
damages and expenses ("hold harmless and indemnify", now them's strong
words, podnah).

The FSF assignment, from an author's point of view, is about (1)
supporting the FSF's social goals by delegating resources to it, and
(2) helping to achieve unified legal control of whole applications,
which is extremely important from the point of view of fixing copyleft
license problems.[2]  This comes at the expense of assuming substantial
additional legal risk (in theory; if you trust the FSF not to sue you
if you inadvertantly screw them[3] you may consider it negligible),
which may or may not be mitigated by having the FSF (presumably) as
co-defendent.

Footnotes: 
[1]  Clear to any reasonable informed person, but that doesn't include
American courts.

[2]  Eg, the XEmacs doc license, which we inherited from GNU Emacs,
has no version numbering etc.  So we are stuck with the original,
because the ownership is widely distributed.  GNU Emacs, of course,
fixed this by simply changing to the GFDL when that became available.
They could do that because the FSF either owns or has the right to
sublicense all code in Emacs.

[3]  This is a theoretical worry about my own code.  I am told that
it's _legally_ possible in this country for my University to
retroactively assert ownership of my "IP", and it's making noises
about doing exactly that.


-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.


_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/