From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-04 18:50:00
"Aaron W. LaFramboise" wrote:
[... "FSF's assignees" ...]
> No. I found only one hit for this wording, here:
> I am actually unsure of where this wording comes from, as it is
> significantly different from all of the standard FSF assignments.
Well, I'm not surprised. ;-)
> I found a copy of (old; the FSF now mails the forms to developers
> directly) assignment forms here:
> assign.future was the standard form for most developers. The recent,
> physical copy of an assignment form that I have examined is very similar
> to this one.
Ah. Now I see what you mean by saying "FSF's assignees". ;-) Well,
but the term "assignees" doesn't include "nonexclusive licensees"
(and/or "sublicensees"), oder? As long as the GPL is not a binding
contract restricting the distribution of lawfully made copies, any
"licensed" owner of a copy [read: everybody and his dog] "is
entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or
otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy" under any terms
s/he likes provided that new terms don't violate any exclusive
rights of the "FSF's assignees" (again modulo first sale and other
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk