From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-04 03:57:15
"Aaron W. LaFramboise" wrote:
> projects) has. Particularly in light of what is happening with SCO and
SCO's claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse (dispute
with Novell on copyrights aside for a moment). That is tenth IBM's
defense, IIRC. FSF's expansive claims are also barred by the
doctrine of copyright misuse. And the GPL is "preempted" by First
> I think many companies evaluating open source libraries are
> interested not only in reasonable licensing terms, but an assurance of
> proper code ownership.
> For the record, the recent FSF copyright assignment document I have a
> physical copy of requires all of FSF's assignees to obey the same
> re-licensing terms as the FSF. Perhaps earlier versions did not.
AFAIK, FSF's assignees are not required to obey anything apart from
agreeing "not to assert patents which are necessarily infringed, i.e.,
it is not reasonably possible to avoid infringement, by the use or
distribution of the Transferred Work against those who use or
distribute the Transferred Work when the Transferred Work is used or
distributed under the GPL or LGPL." Each FSF's assignee "reserves and
retains for the benefit of itself and its subsidiaries and affiliated
companies a nonexclusive, worldwide, irrevocable, fully paid up right
and license to use, execute, copy, make derivative works of, display,
perform, distribute, sell, license and otherwise transfer each
Transferred Work and derivative works thereof and to authorize others
to do any of the forgoing under any terms and conditions."
Is this the part of the agreement you're talking about?
It's totally irrelevant with respect to what I said earlier.