Resolving the licensing issues.

[Rob Landley]

On Wednesday 01 March 2006 1:06 pm, Jim Thompson wrote:
> > A patch based on existing code is not a derivative work?  OK, it might
> > be "your derivative work", but it's a derivative work, right?
>
> Yes, and that means that if the implmentor of the patch distributes the
> code (containing) the patch outside his org, *then* the GPL comes into
> play.
>
> The FSF (who know the rules about as well as anyone) require written
> assignments for submitted patches to FSF-maintained code before it goes
> in the tree.
>
> I can't see how this situation is any different.

The FSF wants written assignments for copyright, not for licensing purposes.  
They actually want the copyright (or at least an interest in the copyright) 
transferred over to them so they have an easier time establishing standing if 
they ever need to sue anybody to enforce the GPL.

The Linux kernel doesn't do that, and neither do we.  The authors of the code 
can take action ourselves, or designate somebody to do so on our behalf.  
Erik does this with the "hall of shame" and despite handing over 
maintainership (because buildroot is now taking up the non-uclibc time he 
used to spend on busybox) his copyrighted code is still all over the place 
and he'd have no trouble establishing standing.  Bruce Perens wouldn't 
either, and he hasn't touched the thing since Erik took over.

The fact the FSF's insistence on physical pieces of paper signing over 
copyrights was a huge source of friction preventing changes from getting 
merged and discouraging developers from participating, and was probably as 
big a factor as Richard Stallman's ego in the original Gnu project stalling 
and dying 15 years ago.

> Jim

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.