| |||||||||||||
Linus on documenting patch provenanceLinus on documenting patch provenancePosted May 23, 2004 16:44 UTC (Sun) by corbet (editor, #1)In reply to: Linus on documenting patch provenance by leandro Parent article: Linus on documenting patch provenance I disagree; tracking the source of code submissions has little to do with copyright assignment. They are two separate issues. The kernel project has made a deliberate decision that contributors keep their copyright on their work; among other things, this approach ensures that nobody will ever attempt to force a different license on the kernel. Whether you ask for assignment or not, you still want to be sure that the contributor has the right to contribute the code--and to be able to document that in the future. An assignment of copyright does not make that happen in some magic way.
(Log in to post comments)
Linus on documenting patch provenance Posted May 24, 2004 16:20 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Jon, you need to take a more detailed look at the FSF's process before you comment further. Find out exactly what the FSF requires from both the contributor and the contributor's employer, and you'll see more clearly the steps they take to make sure that the bases are covered. A legally binding contract is signed by three parties: the FSF, the contributor, and the contributor's employer. The contract does more than just assign copyright. It also has some pretty strong patent language (though the FSF has negotiated weaker language with some contributors, notably IBM). Linus could start with that procedure and adapt it to his desire that the contributor retain copyright. The contract would grant Linus (or some designated body) the right to distribute, and forbid the contributor from coming back later and impeding the distribution (by, say, asserting a patent claim).
Linus on documenting patch provenance Posted May 24, 2004 17:46 UTC (Mon) by josh_stern (guest, #4868) [Link] Pointing out the obvious...To assume that the entity that thecontributor describes as her current employer is the only other party that might have copyright claims on the contributed code is, at best, a fairly weak heuristic, while going for something much stronger than that is likely involve substantial detective work. Perhaps there is some close tie in between the FSF standard and legal precedents for what constitutes reasonable due diligence?? I'd be interested to hear Eben Moglen's commentary on that.
Linus on documenting patch provenance Posted May 25, 2004 0:21 UTC (Tue) by mbp (subscriber, #2737) [Link] Another problem with the FSF system is that (when last I looked) the contributor indemnified the FSF from some legal liabilities arising from the contribution.Much as I love the FSF, I am not going to personally stand between them and a psychopath like SCO. Would they hold me to it? Probably not. But the risk is there. Taking on a potentially unbounded legal liability is a heavy disincentive to signing the FSF assignment.
|
|||||||||||||