Re: IglooFTP goes commercial. Violation of GPL?

[pausmith@nortelnetworks.com (Paul D. Smith)]

%% Carl Mummert <mummert@cs.wcu.edu> writes:
  
  cm> Who owns patches?

The person who wrote it always "owns" it... sort of.  The patch can be
argued to be a derived work of the original, so in a sense the author
might not own it entirely.

  cm> When a patch is integrated into the main product, doesn't the new
  cm> code incorporated from the patch become property of the original
  cm> owner?

No.  The main product now becomes a derived work of both authors.
That's the easy answer.  The more complex answer is only a court could
ultimately decide it, and they may take into consideration various
factors such as the size of the patch, importance to the whole, etc.

  cm>   If, as you suggest, patch code remains the property of the patch
  cm> author, then the 'ownership' of the entire program comes into
  cm> question.

Precisely.

Sometimes no one cares.  Does Linus actually legally _own_ the kernel
anymore?  Who legally owns XEmacs?

This is _exactly_ why the FSF requires copyright assignment.  Done this
way there is absolutely no question who owns the entirety of the
program.  If you care about this, that's the only way to go.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Paul D. Smith <psmith@baynetworks.com>         Network Management Development
 "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.