> He explained that the GNU project does not mandate copyright assignment and that individual projects have a choice when they join the GNU project. However, if a project has chosen to assign copyright, all contributions to that project have to be assigned to the FSF.
So, umn, anyone remember about the "GNU Project" named "Bazaar", which, for most of its life, required copyright to be assigned to the for profit company named Canonical?
> Sullivan lamented that the FSF's copyright assignment policy is often used by companies to justify copyright assignment.
Yep, companies such as Canonical...
But I guess it's not a problem anymore, because as of 2011, they switched from copyright assignment to a contributor agreement granting them all rights to do whatever they like with your contribution? (Don't get me wrong, that was certainly an improvement)
I can see why Canonical wants such a policy for their products. But, it just seems very, very odd to me that Bazaar can be an official "GNU Project" while also requiring copyright assignment -- or, now, a contributor agreement assigning all rights to a for profit company, and without any of the "Stays Free Software" types of protections.