| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The GPL Is a License, not a ContractThe GPL Is a License, not a ContractPosted Dec 4, 2003 7:22 UTC (Thu) by henriksorensen (guest, #6313)Parent article: The GPL Is a License, not a Contract
On the same topic.
(Log in to post comments)
The GPL Is a License, not a Contract Posted Dec 4, 2003 7:30 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] So that FSF can...* defend the code in court. * updated the license if a flaw is found in GPLv2. * change the license (LGPL -> GPL, or vice versa) * update the license after a developer goes out of contact (note that the charter of FSF requires that they release all software as Free Software. So if a bunch of alien clones took over FSF, they still couldn't take the software proprietary) By assigning copyright, the legal stuff becomes FSF's responsibility, and the devs can concentrate on deving.
The GPL Is a License, not a Contract Posted Dec 4, 2003 7:44 UTC (Thu) by henriksorensen (guest, #6313) [Link] But does this mean that other Open source projects are taking a risk, by not followingthe same guidelines ? If the code is published under GPL, or should I say under the intensions behind GPL, for other projects, FSF seems to be willing at least to offer support in case of legal troubles. Also the change of license, what if FSF (even very unlikely), decide they just had enough of this open source thing, and changes all the licenses to a non-open license ? And if the developer goes out of contact, what has changed ? The source code is still available for anyone to change or clone.
The GPL Is a License, not a Contract Posted Dec 4, 2003 9:08 UTC (Thu) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] > But does this mean that other Open source projects are taking a risk, by not following the same guidelines ?If the project's copyright is infringed, they (the authors) will need to pursue the violations themselves. This can be costly, and a company is more likely to scoff at a few programmers (forcing a court case) than at the FSF. > If the code is published under GPL, or should I say under the intensions behind GPL, for other projects, FSF seems to be willing at least to offer support in case of legal troubles. "Support" is defined in many ways; I'm sure if the situation is serious enough, they may offer an amicus curiae brief, or (if not in court) help explain the GPL to the persons in question. > Also the change of license, what if FSF (even very unlikely), decide they just had enough of this open source thing, and changes all the licenses to a non-open license ? The FSF (and others) never bothered to get into "this open source thing", and thankfully still advocate free software. However, if they do start using a non-free license, then you are screwed unless you can get all the contributors together (the contract one signs with the FSF allows you to use your own code for whatever you want; if you get all those people together, you can start over). Nathaniel Nerode, a GCC contributor, has argued the FSF has already done this with the GFDL, so it's not a complete hypothetical anymore.
Probably so Posted Dec 4, 2003 17:57 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] If there are multiple copyright holders enforcing the copyright can bedifficult. Collecting damages without registering the copyright can also be difficult. As an example I found a port of the x48 calculator emulator to MacOS X
The GPL Is a License, not a Contract Posted Dec 4, 2003 8:48 UTC (Thu) by henriksorensen (guest, #6313) [Link] There were some links explaining FSF's position:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html http://www.gnu.org/software/gnue/community/copyleft.html
|
|
||||||||||||