From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4838 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2010 13:20:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 4829 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Apr 2010 13:20:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from VLSI1.ULTRA.NYU.EDU (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 13:20:23 +0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA27093; Sat, 24 Apr 10 09:26:59 EDT From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <11004241326.AA27093@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 13:29:00 -0000 To: ams@gnu.org Subject: Re: Why not contribute? (to GCC) Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca In-Reply-To: References: <20100424121223.B917D9C09@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-04/txt/msg00643.txt.bz2 > The big reason the copyright assignment. I never even bothered to > read it, but as I don't get anything in return there's no point. > Why should put obligaitons on myself, open myself up to even > unlikely liabilities, just so my patches can merged into the > official source distribution? > > You are still open to liabilities for your own project, if you > incorporate code that you do not have copyright over, the original > copyright holder can still sue you. That's a critical point, which almost everybody misses, so I want to repeat it and expand on it. There is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE in your legal liability in contributing patches to a program in the case where you assign copyright to the owner of that program and in the case you don't. The difference is who you're liable TO and who'll defend you, not the amount or the conditions under which you're liable. In fact, for an individual, you're better off WITH the assignment, which people also don't realize! Let's look at two cases. Suppose I contribute two patches, one to GCC where I'm required to assign the patch to the FSF, and one to Linux where, as I understand it, I can keep ownership of the patch and don't have to assign it to anybody. Now let's suppose some company claims my patches violate their copyright. What happens? In the GCC case, they can't come to me since I no longer own that code. They sue the FSF, who defends the case. If they lose (because I DID, in fact, violate somebody's copyright), the FSF now has a claim against me for what they owe plus legal fees. But if they WIN (because I DIDN'T violate the copyright), I haven't had any responsibility beyond possibly being a witness. But now let's look at the case where there WASN'T an assignment. Then the company comes and sues ME. It's now MY responsibility to find and hire attorneys. If I lose, I have pay both the judgement and the legal fees, just like the assignment case. But if I WIN, I may or may not recover my legal fees, unlike the assignment case where I don't HAVE any legal fees. Now, in the case of a large corporation submitting the patch, they DO have the resources to hire attorneys, so in their case the advantage of the assignment isn't there. But the point to take away from this, which is worth emphasizing yet again, is that the assignment does not affect your legal liability AT ALL!