Copyrights and GPL - perhaps IBM should hang on to copyrights in future [LWN.net]

Copyrights and GPL - perhaps IBM should hang on to copyrights in future

Posted Sep 26, 2003 18:40 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065)
In reply to: Copyrights and GPL - perhaps IBM should hang on to copyrights in future by namaseit
Parent article: IBM Files New Claims Against SCO in Linux Case (Dow Jones)

You are confusing putting something under the GPL with assignment of copyright.

Assigning a copyright means giving another person or legal entity the rights granted under copyright law. It is true that the FSF has a copyright assignment form which also grants most of those rights back to the author. So the original author can use the work however they want including putting it under a different license than the GPL. But that is not the same as being the copyright holder.

The question is, does the assignment form somehow let the original author still file copyright infrigement lawsuits? If so how?

(Log in to post comments)

Copyrights and GPL - perhaps IBM should hang on to copyrights in future

Posted Sep 26, 2003 18:48 UTC (Fri) by namaseit (guest, #13940) [Link]

It is just a matter of whether whether or not the person or corporation in
question is in violation of the GPL. If they are in violation of the GPL then they
have lost the right to distribut the code and continuation of distributing the
code is against 'copyright law'. The GPL uses copyright law. Since the
author's still retain the right of that code and that copyright, they have the right
to pursue damages for the violation of the GPL. GPL is just an extension of the
already existing Copyright system. GPL is just a contract that dictates
distribution and modification rights. It does not change ownership of copyrights.

Copyrights and GPL - perhaps IBM should hang on to copyrights in future

Posted Sep 26, 2003 20:09 UTC (Fri) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

I completely agree with you about the GPL. We are in violent agreement.

But what we were talking about a few posts earlier was not putting code
under the GPL, but instead signing a contract with the FSG to transfer
ownership of the copyrights from IBM to the FSF. I had read that IBM had
in fact done that with their kernel changes. I could have been wrong.

The only reason I brought it up is that under US law (to my knowledge and
of course IANAL), only a copyright holder can file a lawsuit for
copyright infringement.

The implication was that the FSF should have been filing the lawsuit not
IBM.

There are multiple reasons it didn't happen this way, and I was just curious which one it was:

a) Maybe IBM didn't transfer all of their kernel changes to the FSF
b) Maybe the FSF copyright assignment form somehow allows the original
author to still file lawsuits
c) Maybe IBM is for some reason able to file this counter-suit even
though they transferred the licenses because they were first sued by
the SCO Group
d) Something else that I haven't thought of :)