Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Kernel developers' position on GPLv3Kernel developers' position on GPLv3Posted Sep 22, 2006 19:33 UTC (Fri) by jgarzik (subscriber, #8364)In reply to: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3 by sp.at Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3
In practice, the vast majority of the GNU codebase requires copyright assignment, including all major projects (binutils, gcc, glibc).
(Log in to post comments)
Kernel developers' position on GPLv3 Posted Sep 22, 2006 21:26 UTC (Fri) by jbailey (subscriber, #16890) [Link] Yes, but that was the choice of the original authors in every case. The trick with the major projects is that they were almost all started / funded by the FSF.
Kernel developers' position on GPLv3 Posted Sep 22, 2006 22:55 UTC (Fri) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] When in the past I sent in patches to FSF code, I was asked to sign over my copyright of that patch to the FSF for it to be accepted. This was listed by others I asked as the standard FSF practice. I think this is what they are referring to.
[I can patch binutils all I want, but if I want the official binutils to have those patches.. I have to reassign the copyright to the FSF.]
|
|||||||||||||