From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32126 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2010 19:47:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 32116 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Apr 2010 19:47:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ka.mail.enyo.de (HELO ka.mail.enyo.de) (87.106.162.201) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 19:47:18 +0000 Received: from [172.17.135.4] (helo=deneb.enyo.de) by ka.mail.enyo.de with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) id 1O5lJo-0006N0-0m; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 21:47:12 +0200 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O5lJn-0001rB-Ok; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 21:47:11 +0200 From: Florian Weimer To: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Cc: ams@gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca Subject: Re: Why not contribute? (to GCC) References: <20100424121223.B917D9C09@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <11004241326.AA27093@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 19:48:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <11004241326.AA27093@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> (Richard Kenner's message of "Sat, 24 Apr 2010 09:26:57 EDT") Message-ID: <87wrvw63b4.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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/msg00670.txt.bz2 * Richard Kenner: > 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. Isn't it far more likely that you would be co-defendant because your posting to gcc-patches was a copyright violation in itself?