| |||||||||||
ClarificationClarificationPosted May 20, 2004 18:56 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)In reply to: Clarification by Ross Parent article: News from the SCO front
The FSF goes further. They require indemnification. That means that if you sign the forms to contribute code to the FSF, and you know it's someone else's code, you pay any damages that the FSF might have to pay, at least until you're bankrupt. That's a legal protection Linus does not have.
(Log in to post comments)
FSF and stolen code Posted May 22, 2004 18:58 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] The GNU Project's (FSF) process makes it a whole lot less likely that GNU Bash contains stolen code than that the Linux kernel does, but I agree it doesn't eliminate the problem completely. There's still the problem of the contributor who deliberately or mistakenly claims he owns the rights to contributed code when he really doesn't.In that case, the GNU indemnification requirement is barely meaningful. It doesn't protect a user of Bash. Under copyright law, a user of Bash can be liable for royalties to the actual copyright owner of the code. That could be, for example, the guy from whom that contributor copied it, or the guy for whom he wrote it for hire.
|
|||||||||||