From: Giovanni Piero Deretta (gpderetta_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-08-07 15:53:57
On 8/7/06, Martin Wille <mw8329_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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
> > 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
> > 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
While you can't relinquish moral rights, you can certainly transfer
economics righs. This is true everywere in the UE AFAIK. For example if you
are employed in a company it is likely that the company owns you intelectual
work. While you have the moral right to be recognized as the author of your
work, the company owns the exclusive right to it exploit it commercially.
-- Giovanni P. Deretta
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk