SLUG Mailing List Archives
Re: [SLUG] Re: Re: Copyright assignment + the GPL [Was: Streaming media servers]
- To: QuantumG <qg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [SLUG] Re: Re: Copyright assignment + the GPL [Was: Streaming media servers]
- From: Glen Turner <glen.turner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:13:09 +1030
- Cc: slug@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Organization: Australian Academic and Research Network
- User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (X11/20041127)
Not at all. My general statement is that assigning copyright to people
who want that copyright assignment so they can make a proprietary
distribution of the software is bad.
Copyright assignment lowers the risk to the company. They can never
be in a situation where some foolish error leads to them losing rights
over the software they are distributing (eg, the error could lead
to the copyright holder terminating their GPL license).
Without copyright assignment you'd see less companies willing
to open source their code. The lawyers would simply kill it,
as they're notoriously risk averse.
It's also better for the developer, as the rights re-assignment
to the developer gives them a clear license (eg, it is fruitless
for the company to argue that the developer's contribution was a
derived work and seek to have copyright assigned to the company
and the developer's license terminated).
> Assigning copyright to the FSF is the best thing in the world.
> I would suggest that everyone do it.
This is a troll right? There was that marvellous situation
with bison where the author of the code disagreed with FSF's
interpretation of the GPL but was basically powerless.
There is not a clearly superior strategy for who holds the
copyright over GPLed code. It's a vexed question with
pluses and minuses to each decision.
The only thing that is clear is that the developer needs a
high level of trust in the entity requesting the copyright
assignment. After SCO I'm not sure that any of Ray Noorda's
current or previous activities engenders the necessary level
of trust for me.