| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Copyrights and GPL - perhaps IBM should hang on to copyrights in futureCopyrights and GPL - perhaps IBM should hang on to copyrights in futurePosted Sep 26, 2003 18:47 UTC (Fri) by fergal (subscriber, #602)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)
The point is that for some of their code they released it under the GPL and assigned the copyright to the FSF. Nobody is suggesting that you must assign your copyright when you GPL. However you can choose to assign it to another person or organisation. Why would you do that? Because that other organisation may be in a much better position to defend your code than you are, they may already have expert lawyers and people to work full time on the case, whereas you may have a day job and a mortgage. The FSF can/will only defend code that has been assigned to them. So it makes sense to do this, unless you have plans to license your code under another license too. The "funny" thing here is that IBM is probably much better able to defend their code than the FSF so perhaps they should GPL but not assign to the FSF in future, or better still, GPL, assign and give big wodges of cash to the FSF.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||