From: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard (jbms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-03 15:07:56
Alexander Terekhov <terekhov_at_[hidden]> writes:
> "Aaron W. LaFramboise" wrote:
>> The strategy that the FSF uses is to require a formal copyright
>> assignment for all non-trivial contributions. That puts them into a
>> very good legal position, as they are able to license anything in any
>> manner they like;
> Wrong. While the FSF can sell all trensferred copyrights to Microsoft,
> the ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT (contract) states that
> "The Foundation agrees that all of its distributions of the
> Transferred Work, or of any work "based on the Transferred Work"
> (that is any work that in whole or in part incorporates or is
> derived from all or part of the Transferred Work), shall be under a
> version of the Foundation's General
> Public License, Lesser General Public License or Library General Public
> License (collectively "LGPL").
Technically, however, that is not a barrier, since the foundation can
create additional licenses with the desired provisions, and refer to
such documents as additional versions of the General Public License or
Lesser General Public License.
-- Jeremy Maitin-Shepard
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk