Re: The debate on Invariant sections (long)
> > My understanding is that the FSF requires copyright assignments in
> > order to give themselves the ability to most effectively defend the
> > community against poachers and legal attacks.
>
> It seems perfectly plausible to me that the reason you cite was never
> the sole motivation for this policy, though it may have been the most
> frequently and publicly articulated one.
Sure, and it's also perfectly plausible that RMS is a secret employee
of Microsoft and Chinese double agent plotting the use of free
software to assassinate the Dalai Lama. But this is debian-legal not
debian-wacko-conspiracy-theory.
Given the FSF's highly successful GPL enforcement activities and
prescient concern with optimizing the community's legal position, and
RMS's track record of both contributing to and founding the community,
it seems like Occam's razor dictates taking the FSF's explanation for
requesting assignments at face value.
Consider the current SCO/IBM brouhaha - it's a shame the FSF doesn't
have assignments for the Linux kernel which would put it in a position
to stand up for the community against SCO's bullying. It is no
coincidence that SCO chose to attack something that the FSF doesn't
have legal paperwork on.
Reply to: