| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
...and if SCO is right...?...and if SCO is right...?Posted May 16, 2003 17:11 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)Parent article: ...and if SCO is right...?
There's been a long-running argument between Linus and the FSF over the issue of copyright assignments. Contributors to key FSF projects, such as GCC, sign a binding legal contract with the FSF. The standard language (which most contributors have signed) contains the language The Assigner hereby represents and warrants that it is the sole copyright holder for the Work and that it has the right and power to enter into this contract. The Assigner hereby indemnify and hold harmless the Foundation, its officers, employees, and agents against any and all claims, actions or damages (including attorney's reasonable fees) asserted by or paid to any party on account of a breach or alleged breach of the foregoing warranty. Linus has rejected the concept of assignment and has argued rather vigorously against it. This means that the FSF is protected against dishonest folks in a way that Linus is not.
(Log in to post comments)
...and if SCO is right...? Posted May 16, 2003 17:37 UTC (Fri) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] I'm having trouble seeing Joe Buck's point here. Is there a worry about Linushimself being sued? For what? Which act of negligence and what damages? On the other hand, let's suppose that there was a copyright assignment to the FSF in place, but that in spite of this, Evil Employee X of Corporation Y injected tainted code into the kernel. If Evil X is wrongfully misappropriating IP of Corp Y, then Corp Y doesn't lose copyright because of that - the code would still need to be purged. If Corp Y was behind the actions of X then they have committed fraud and would certainly lose their copyright, with or without the extra copyright agreement. What SCO alleges, if true, puts the kernel team in a position analogous to someone who unknowingly received stolen property. Corbet is right to point out that this could cause more future caution about where stuff comes from in the future, but people who steal other's stuff might also falsely sign release forms, and the overall situation would not be significantly altered in that case.
...and if SCO is right...? Posted May 17, 2003 16:35 UTC (Sat) by donwaugaman (subscriber, #4214) [Link] > On the other hand, let's suppose that there was a copyright assignment> to the FSF in place, but that in spite of this, Evil Employee X of > Corporation Y injected tainted code into the kernel. The FSF covers this by making a representative of Corporation Y sign the copyright assignment in addition to or in lieu of Evil Employee X. If Evil Employee X signs it without Corporation Y's approval, Evil Employee X is on the hook for damages, since: "The Assigner hereby represents and warrants that it is the sole copyright holder for the Work and that it has the right and power to enter into this contract." The warrant means that Y cannot go after the FSF if X does the wrong thing; but they can sue X for misappropriation.
...and if SCO is right...? Posted May 17, 2003 19:32 UTC (Sat) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] >The FSF covers this by making a representative of Corporation Y sign the>copyright assignment in addition to or in lieu of Evil Employee X. If Evil >Employee X signs it without Corporation Y's approval, But our thread topic here is about people knowingly misappropriating/stealing stuff, and what might have to be done to remedy that. In that context, 'extra protection' based on the idea that the person who would do such a thing would not lie about who their employer is, fake a signature, etc. seems minimal to me. Their plan is clearly to get away with something based on the idea that nobody will every bother with the comparison necessary to discover their wrongdoing. >The warrant means that Y cannot go after the FSF if X does the wrong thing; >but they can sue X for misappropriation. Almost every software/technology corporation has employment agreements that would allow them to do this anyway. The one's that don't probably don't consider their software to be proprietary in that way. My argument isn't that the FSF procedures are wrongheaded, but rather they are not all that germane to the important issues. The big core risk to free software here is not lawsuits of FSF, Linus, etc. but rather possible fear on the part of business users of free software who might worry that open source makes fishing expeditions for IP violation easier and increases the possibility that their business, that relies on said said software, could be interrupted sometime in the future by an IP-based cease and desist order. It seems to me that their fear could only be assuaged by either a) believing such an event is just too improbable to worry about, or b) getting some legal protection in the form of court precedent that any cease and desist would have to take due account of their innocence and collateral damage (e.g. they would automatically get some reasonably long grace period to comfortably make a change in their installation). The 'protection' that they would have a stronger lawsuit against the, now unemployed, EvilX just isn't all that relevant to them.
...and if SCO is right...? Posted May 18, 2003 15:03 UTC (Sun) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link] Why is a copyright assignment needed for this?You can as easily make a contributor sign a similar agreement without assigning copyright. The Mozilla project makes people with CVS access sign such a form (it also requires that they provide attribution for other people's patches that they commit, to help with accountability).
...and if SCO is right...? Posted May 22, 2003 4:44 UTC (Thu) by mmarkov (guest, #4978) [Link] I am surprised this measure is necessary.Isn't the innocence of the consumer (I mean, the one that receives) pre-supposed? For instance, when you buy something, you don't need a special certificate that it is not stolen/smuggled/etc. If it turns out afterwards that the commodity is somehow illegal, you are clean, unless it is proven that you bought it, knowing about the illegality.
...and if SCO is right...? Posted May 22, 2003 8:27 UTC (Thu) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link] Only clean in the sence that you will not be punished for the theft. You still have to give the stolent good back to the real owner, without refund of your costs, unless you can find the person who sold it to you and demand a refund from him/her.
...and if SCO is right...? Posted May 23, 2003 16:46 UTC (Fri) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link] But having a signed transfer of ownership document doesn't avoid that. If it's found to be stolen property, the recipient will still lose it, and his recourse is still only with the party that provided it.
|
|
||||||||||||