Ben Collins wrote:
>>The whole point of the copyright assignment is that FSF becomes
>>copyright owner.
>>
>>This is so that Jeff Garzik cannot be strongarmed into changing the
>>license on his code, or some other anti-software-freedom tactic levied
>>against me in the future. In theory, the FSF as an organization will
>>protect the rights of the software when I might weaken and give in.
>>
>>But in exchange for that protection, you are willingly giving up your
>>rights as copyright owner... Less freedom for [hopefully] better
>>protection. Just like everything in life, it's a tradeoff... :)
>>
>
>
> I disagree. I don't see anything in the copyright assignment (and I have
> signed a few for the FSF) that says I don't retain original copyright
> for my work.
If you keep a copy locally, sure. But the upstream sources, i.e. what's
important, you lose rights to even though you may have contributed
substantial amounts of code. IOW if binutils goes off in a direction
you don't like, for example the FSF changes the license from GPL to
Microsoft EULA, you don't have any say in the matter whatsoever. You're
left with a code fork based on the last GPL sources and/or the patches
you've kept locally.
With Linux, I have a say in what happens to the upstream sources -- the
thing most people care about :)
Jeff
IOW if binutils goes off in a direction
you don't like, for example the FSF changes the license from GPL to
Microsoft EULA, you don't have any say in the matter whatsoever.
FSF copyright assignments place a number of limits on how the FSF can
use the code, including limits on what sort of licenses we can use.
If we did what you have in mind, we would be violating all these
contracts (as well as our charter). I wrote the contracts this way so
that contributors would not have to rely entirely on our good
intentions.
OK, time for me to weigh in, I agree with RMS that this must be both a technical and ethical board, and in fact moreso must encompass ALL aspects of the development of the kernel.
Next, I would like to apologize to Larry McVoy, you have given us your program, free of cost, you have allowed us to use your program, which was determined by Linus (and with the respect I have for this man, let alone his position, his determination is inarguable) to be the superior source management system. You sir have taken more (and pardon me here) shit than just about anyone I've ever seen on any mailing list. Quite honestly sir, I would have packed up my basketball and gone home. I thank you for staying and assure you that there are people on this list, and in the community that thank you for your efforts in making the linux kernel what it is.
To RMS, and the host of those in the world, I add one more freedom to those espoused in the GPL. The freedom to simply not use it when software released under it's terms aren't the best fit for what needs to be done. It's a license not a swiss army knife. Anyways I'm done ranting, regards to all who have had their time wasted in this fruitless argument, and thankyou again to larry for his tolerance of this.
Andrew D Kirch
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 23:13:37 -0400
Richard Stallman <[email protected]> wrote:
> IOW if binutils goes off in a direction
> you don't like, for example the FSF changes the license from GPL to
> Microsoft EULA, you don't have any say in the matter whatsoever.
>
> FSF copyright assignments place a number of limits on how the FSF can
> use the code, including limits on what sort of licenses we can use.
> If we did what you have in mind, we would be violating all these
> contracts (as well as our charter). I wrote the contracts this way so
> that contributors would not have to rely entirely on our good
> intentions.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/