Re: Future code ownership

["Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1275 bytes --]

Hi -


jifl wrote:

> > I'm still being misunderstood.  My point is that you might find a way
> > to go *without* formal copyright assignments to a central organization,
> > and still be relatively safe from corporate copyrights.
> 
> "relatively"? It's the "relatively" that's the problem. I agree that 99% 
> of the time there's no problem. It's the magnitude of the problems that 
> the 1% cause that give us reason to hesitate.

Right.


> > Yes, whatever [the FSF has] makes sense to them for their assignment-based
> > scheme, and there has been little "competition" to discourage excessive
> > barriers to contribution.
> 
> But it's their legal advisors that say it's not excessive to use an 
> assignment-based scheme! It's the only way to be legally sure about
> ownership. [...]

But that begs the question.  Just because the FSF uses such relatively
bulletproof documentation requirements (company officers' signatures
for assignments) does not mean that this is the only way.  (Even the
FSF has a slightly different copyright-disclaim mechanism.)  Anyway,
Another lawyer may give advice more in line with my intuition, and
that would render FSF's approach excessive.  IOW, You might want to
get your own legal opinion.


- FChE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]