Re: [boost] Re: Legal issues and licensing -- again

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...
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=wIydnR3Jjccj0hGjXTWcqg%40news.io.com
> (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
discussion.

This (http://www.gnuenterprise.org/community/copyleft.html) 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."

Regards,

Terje