3 ms·
Yes the code is under GPL. The FSF wants copyright assigned to it, because that allows them to sue people that infringe the GPL [1]. This assignment is the prec
by legulere 10y ago
Yes the code is under GPL. The FSF wants copyright assigned to it, because that allows them to sue people that infringe the GPL [1]. This assignment is the precondition for the code to get included into GCC, but which the lawyers at Berkley don't seem to be so fond of.
Owning the copyright also allows you to dual license the code under different licenses. That's not really the issue here with the FSF, but it's one of the many good reasons not to assign copyright to other entities.
[1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
- theandrewbailey 10y agoThanks for pointing this out. I remember reading somewhere that a GPL license means that the creator still holds copyright (even though the work can be used by anyone). Having to assign copyright to the FSF gave me a WTF. This clears it up.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> The FSF wants copyright assigned to it, because that allows them to sue people that infringe the GPL But that's not at all true: they can sue people that violate the copyright on the derivative work incorporating the UCB-owned code (or code derived from it in the future) if they are properly licensed to create a distribute derivative works, which have their own copyright. Assignment just means UCB loses the right to sue over violations of the copyright, and the FSF's right to sue becomes exclusive -- which also gives FSF stronger negotiating power in settling lawsuits, since otherwise settling with the FSF would potentially leave others with legal claims.