Re: IglooFTP goes commercial. Violation of GPL?
Paul D. Smith wrote:
> %% Carl Mummert <mummert@cs.wcu.edu> writes:
>
> 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.
I'd like the FSF to _not_ do this. I think free software is made
_stronger_ by multiple copyright holders. If I release GPL'ed
code and accept a ton of patches, then I can't easily turn that
code into non-GPL code in a future version. That makes the code
more likely to remain GPLed. There's code I wrote which will
_never_ be part of Emacs because there's no way I'll ever want to
track down patch contributors to get them to sign any legal
paperwork.
The GPL offers us great protection. The FSF demanding copyright
transfer to them is saying that what's good enough for the rest
of us isn't good enough for them. Simple GPL protection isn't
good enough for them. I don't like it.
--
Peter Galbraith, research scientist <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>
Maurice Lamontagne Institute, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
P.O. Box 1000, Mont-Joli Qc, G5H 3Z4 Canada. 418-775-0852 FAX: 775-0546
6623'rd GNU/Linux user at the Counter - http://counter.li.org/
Reply to: