Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness
Andrew Stribblehill <email@example.com> writes:
> Jesse, the upstream developer of RT3 assures me that they have no
> intention of stealing the copyright on code that hasn't been
> intentionally given to them for the purpose of inclusion in RT. He's
> in consultation with Best Practical's lawyers about how best to
> re-word it to reflect their intentions.
> Regarding the concept of taking the copyright of code: it's what the
> FSF have been doing since 1992 with Emacs. The difference here is
> that if you feel strongly about it, you get to keep your copyright.
That isn't true. The FSF won't distribute anything they don't have
the copyright to -- but that's quite different. If I want them to use
my patches in their distribution of Emacs, I have to sign copyright
assignment papers and transfer my ownership to the FSF. But I can
distribute my own modified version of Emacs, and the FSF claims no
rights to the code I wrote.
This is different. This says that if I publish my modified rt3, and
some other person submits that code to Best Practical, that Best
Practical can claim copyright on it. That's not only non-free -- and
clearly not what Best Practical intended -- that's not even legally
effective in the USA.
Brian Sniffen firstname.lastname@example.org