Re: GPLv3 comedy unfolding -- Linus' gang: "abandon the current GPLv3 process before it becomes too late"

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>> 
>> > "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> In this case, the FSF is the legally-recognised author and the
>> >> exclusive licensor.  They hold the copyright.
>> >
>> > AFAIK, the FSF isn't exclusive licensor of assigned stuff.
>> 
>> They grant you a sublicense for arbitrary use under any license you
>> choose.
>
> Read again the quoted snipped from the IBM assignment letter,
> retard.

You'll have to pardon me, oh highly intelligent one, but I _do_ have
such an agreement of reverse assignment for projects of mine I
assigned to the FSF.  I happen not to be IBM, and most posters on this
list probably aren't either, so likely the assignment contract I
entered with the FSF would appear more relevant for private persons.

> Was it really that special?

Likely, yes.

> How about this part:
>
> "The Foundation agrees that all of its distributions of the Transferred
> Work, or of any work "based on the Transferred Work" (that is any work 
> that in whole or in part incorporates or is derived from all or part of 
> the Transferred Work), shall be under a version of the Foundation's 
> General Public License,  Lesser General Public License or Library 
> General Public License (collectively "LGPL")."

Well, in my latest contract here I don't think the licenses have been
spelled out, instead a guarantee about nothing being distributed under
terms where the recipient has less rights than a specified minimal set
was given.

It it likely that the forms have changed over time, and also based on
the entity that is involved: more likely than not, the law departments
of large corporations will raise objections to an off-the-shelf
reverse license.  There is a reason that "copyright clerk" is a
regular job at the FSF.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum