From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 516 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 2003 16:21:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ecos-maintainers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-maintainers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 500 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2003 16:21:52 -0000 Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 16:21:00 -0000 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" To: Jonathan Larmour Cc: ecos-maintainers@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Future code ownership Message-ID: <20030102112140.B3571@redhat.com> References: <3E145A86.5050601@eCosCentric.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="uZ3hkaAS1mZxFaxD" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3E145A86.5050601@eCosCentric.com>; from jifl@eCosCentric.com on Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 03:28:06PM +0000 X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00002.txt.bz2 --uZ3hkaAS1mZxFaxD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 1255 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. >=20 > "relatively"? It's the "relatively" that's the problem. I agree that 99%= =20 > of the time there's no problem. It's the magnitude of the problems that=20 > the 1% cause that give us reason to hesitate. Right. > > Yes, whatever [the FSF has] makes sense to them for their assignment-ba= sed > > scheme, and there has been little "competition" to discourage excessive > > barriers to contribution. >=20 > But it's their legal advisors that say it's not excessive to use an=20 > 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 --uZ3hkaAS1mZxFaxD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline Content-length: 189 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+FGcUVZbdDOm/ZT0RAoeqAJ4iooN74dzvSukd602y3AB11PjbVACghcfM ASizbeiCwgxIiXS3b1yPKmE= =3ph2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --uZ3hkaAS1mZxFaxD--