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

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>> 
>> The FSF is the exclusive, and soul copyright holder of all parts in
>> GCC.  They can choose to do whatever they want with IBM's code, they
>> are the copyright holders of said code, not IBM.
>
> Hey dak, call 911 for comrade ams.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2000-07/msg00181.html
> (assignment of gcc patches)
>
> -----
> IBM reserves and retains for the benefit of itself and its subsidiaries
> and affiliated companies a nonexclusive, worldwide, irrevocable, fully 
> paid up right and license

Well, if IBM remained the copyright holder, they would not need to get
a contractually guaranteed "fully paid up right and license to
use...", would they?  As copyright holder, they would automatically
have that right.

> to use, execute, copy, make derivative works of, display, perform,
> distribute, sell, license and otherwise transfer each Transferred
> Work and derivative works thereof and to authorize others to do any
> of the forgoing under any terms and conditions.
>
> [...]
>
> 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").  -----

Of course, contrary to ams' contention, the FSF can't just choose to
do whatever they want to with IBM's code: they are contractually bound
to distribute it only under certain terms.  If the FSF "does whatever
they want to", however, that does not make them come into conflict
with copyright (since they are the copyright holder) but rather with
the assignment contract terms.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum