| |||||||||||
IncorrectIncorrectPosted Apr 20, 2005 3:58 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)In reply to: Lack of developers delays OpenOffice.org (ComputerWorld) by newren Parent article: Lack of developers delays OpenOffice.org (ComputerWorld) The FSF requires actual assignment in addition to a disclaimer from the employer. The reason is not just so that the FSF can enforce the copyright in court, it is also so that the FSF itself does not get sued later by some employer who claims that their employee had no right to contribute code and that the company owns the code (most working programmers in the US sign employment agreements that assign the copyright to all code they produce to their employer, some even claim that the employer owns every idea the employee comes up with that vaguely relates to the job).
(Log in to post comments)
Incorrect Posted Apr 20, 2005 4:37 UTC (Wed) by newren (subscriber, #5160) [Link] If I was incorrect, then the gcc site which explains how to contribute to gcc (http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#legal)--and which I linked to to back up what I said--is wrong. That URL states that "If a contributor is reluctant to sign a copyright assignment for a large change, a disclaimer is acceptable as well. However, a copyright assignment is more convenient if a contributor plans to make several separate contributions."
However, digging further, it turns out that what you claim does match what is said at http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Copyright-..., which states that "Before incorporating significant changes, make sure that the person who wrote the changes has signed copyright papers and that the Free Software Foundation has received and signed them. We may also need a disclaimer from the person's employer."
So, it looks like the general gnu maintainer guidelines conflict with the information on the gcc site.... odd.
Incorrect Posted Apr 20, 2005 14:43 UTC (Wed) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link] The copyright disclaimer form does provide similar legal protection to the FSF as a copyright assignment form. The main difference is that code covered by a disclaimer is essentially public domain, so the FSF can't bring a GPL violation case with respect to that code.
Incorrect -- again Posted Apr 21, 2005 0:53 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] You misunderstand. There are two types of copyright disclaimers beingdiscussed. One is disclaiming copyright interest by directly putting a work into the public domain. The other is getting a sign-off from employers and schools that they do not claim ownership of a contribution by one of their employees or students. This does not mean the employee or student wishes to place the work in the public domain. It simply means that if they assign the copyright to the FSF that it would be a legitimate act and that the employer or school can't come along later and say they are the "real" owner and didn't consent to the copyright assignment.
|
|||||||||||