From: Martin Wille (mw8329_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-08-07 14:44:55
Giovanni Piero Deretta wrote:
> On 8/7/06, Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I guess the variety of replies of this thread speaks for itself about
>> the advisability to add some dual-licensing item to the FAQ :-)
>> OTOH, that could be just a question that *I* get frequently asked.
>> FWIW, I would certainly dual-license some contributions such as TR1
>> implementations, for instance, so that the guys of libstdc++, to cite
>> an example, would not have to re-implement them from scratch.
> As the Boost licence is compatible with the GPL (according to the FSF),
> wouldn't the guys of the libstdc++ be able to just include the TR1 stuff?
> The real problem is that to include code in an FSF project you need to
> assign copyright to the FSF, and i guess this is different from dual
> licensing, i.e. the FSF then would own the copyright. I do not know if they
> would be the sole owner of the original author would retain (shared)
> ownership. IANAL of course.
You can't assign the copyright on your works to someone else in some
countries. Likewise, you can't relinquish copyright on your work in
those countries (so "putting in public domain" is not possible). You can
transfer the "right of use" in those countries.
Requiring transfering of copyright to the FSF looks like a weird
requirement to me, given that this would exclude many people from
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk