3 ms·

I discussed this issue with a GCC developer at the LLVM Cauldron in Hebden Bridge a few weeks ago. He pointed out that although it's understandable the UC Berke

by asb 10y ago

I discussed this issue with a GCC developer at the LLVM Cauldron in Hebden Bridge a few weeks ago. He pointed out that although it's understandable the UC Berkeley regents balk at the idea of exclusive copyright assignment, the terms of the assignment do allow you to receive non-exclusive rights back with a 90 day notice period. Why it's structured in that way I'm not sure. I would hope there's a legal reason relating to the FSF's ability to fight copyright infringement, rather than a simple desire to discourage dual licensing.

davexunit 10y ago
Copyright assignment is done so that FSF has the standing to sue for GPL violations.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Copyright assignment is done so that FSF has the standing to sue for GPL violations. Were they are a licensee authorized to make and redistribute a derivative work, they would have standing to sue for violations of the copyright on the derivative. Copyright assignment is not necessary for the FSF to have standing to sue for violations of the copyright on GCC when it incorporates the UCB-owned code. Copyright assignment does, however, prevent UCB from having standing to sue for violations -- and I think making the FSF's standing exclusive is exactly the point.
  - bonzini 10y ago
    > Copyright assignment is not necessary for the FSF to have standing to sue for violations of the copyright on GCC when it incorporates the UCB-owned code. No, but copyright assignment is necessary for the FSF to have standing to sue on UCB-owned code (not just on derivatives), without any approval or collaboration from UCB and bypassing any discussion (whether in court or outside) on "how much" of the code the FSF owns. Making FSF's standing exclusive is not the point; making FSF autonomous is.
- kazinator 10y ago
  True; but it's not only that, I think. It simply eliminates the general problem of a GNU project being a patchwork of individual copyrights from individual contributors. Even if those individual contributors say they are putting their piece under the GPL, in fact they might not have the right to do so. Part of the process is getting some affidavit from employers that they don't claim rights over the contributor's work on the project. They are worried about a situation like: someone suddenly coming forward and and claims that some significant piece that was added to some GNU project five years ago (and has grown in scope since then) is actually their proprietary IP.

by asb 10y ago

davexunit 10y ago

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Copyright assignment is done so that FSF has the standing to sue for GPL violations. Were they are a licensee authorized to make and redistribute a derivative work, they would have standing to sue for violations of the copyright on the derivative. Copyright assignment is not necessary for the FSF to have standing to sue for violations of the copyright on GCC when it incorporates the UCB-owned code. Copyright assignment does, however, prevent UCB from having standing to sue for violations -- and I think making the FSF's standing exclusive is exactly the point.
- bonzini 10y ago
  > Copyright assignment is not necessary for the FSF to have standing to sue for violations of the copyright on GCC when it incorporates the UCB-owned code. No, but copyright assignment is necessary for the FSF to have standing to sue on UCB-owned code (not just on derivatives), without any approval or collaboration from UCB and bypassing any discussion (whether in court or outside) on "how much" of the code the FSF owns. Making FSF's standing exclusive is not the point; making FSF autonomous is.
kazinator 10y ago
True; but it's not only that, I think. It simply eliminates the general problem of a GNU project being a patchwork of individual copyrights from individual contributors. Even if those individual contributors say they are putting their piece under the GPL, in fact they might not have the right to do so. Part of the process is getting some affidavit from employers that they don't claim rights over the contributor's work on the project. They are worried about a situation like: someone suddenly coming forward and and claims that some significant piece that was added to some GNU project five years ago (and has grown in scope since then) is actually their proprietary IP.