Boost logo

Boost :

From: Terje Slettebø (tslettebo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-09 14:53:22

>From: "Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov_at_[hidden]>

> Terje Slettebø wrote:

> > Maybe one could have used copyright assignment to the stated copyright
> > holder, the way FSF does.
> Yeah, sure...
> (Subject: Re: The semantics thread :-> (was Re: clone vs pthread_create))
> "....
> The GPL stands this definition on its head, which is why its such
> a clever bit of work. Oddly enough, it uses copyright to assert
> "proprietariness," in order to assure availability to everyone.
> It could only have been invented by a CS geek; it's got "meta"
> written all over it. :-)
> ...."

I seem to have missed your point. What do you mean? I read the article you
gave a link to, but didn't find any connection between that and assigning
copyright to someone.

The article discussed the GPL license, which is irrelevant in this

This ( also has some
relevance to the current discussion:

"We know that some other free software projects are not as formal in
requiring formal copyright assignment, especially for minor patches. Their
rationale is that, by submitting a patch, the patch author is implicitly
assigning copyright on that patch to the authors of the original code.
Whilst we understand this position, we prefer the legal certainty of a
formal copyright assignment."



Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at