Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 22, 2006 18:46 UTC (Fri) by sp.at (guest, #36249)
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Ad 4 "Pivotal Role of the Free Software Foundation":

Quoting [Kernel developer's position on GPLv3]: "However, we also take note of the fact that the FSF operates very differently from Linux in that it requires assignment of copyright from each and every one of the thousands of contributors to its code base."

This is plain wrong. The FSF does at NO POINT require you to assign copyright to them. It is more of an option to whoever applies for his project to become part of GNU.

Quoting [http://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.html]: "For a program to be GNU software does not require transferring copyright to the FSF; that is a separate question. If you transfer the copyright to the FSF, the FSF will enforce the GPL for the program if someone violates it; if you keep the copyright, enforcement will be up to you."

to post comments

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 22, 2006 19:33 UTC (Fri) by jgarzik (guest, #8364) [Link] (2 responses)

In practice, the vast majority of the GNU codebase requires copyright assignment, including all major projects (binutils, gcc, glibc).

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 22, 2006 21:26 UTC (Fri) by jbailey (guest, #16890) [Link] (1 responses)

Yes, but that was the choice of the original authors in every case. The trick with the major projects is that they were almost all started / funded by the FSF.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 22, 2006 22:55 UTC (Fri) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link]

When in the past I sent in patches to FSF code, I was asked to sign over my copyright of that patch to the FSF for it to be accepted. This was listed by others I asked as the standard FSF practice. I think this is what they are referring to.

[I can patch binutils all I want, but if I want the official binutils to have those patches.. I have to reassign the copyright to the FSF.]

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 22, 2006 19:59 UTC (Fri) by ajross (guest, #4563) [Link] (3 responses)

However, we also take note of the fact that the FSF operates very differently from Linux in that it requires assignment of copyright from each and every one of the thousands of contributors to its code base.
This is plain wrong. The FSF does at NO POINT require you to assign copyright to them. It is more of an option to whoever applies for his project to become part of GNU.

It looks correct to me. The FSF requires copyright assignment for all code submissions to the GNU project.

I think you misinterpreted the text as indicating that the FSF requires all GPLed code to be assigned, which is of course incorrect. The phrase "its code base" clearly refers to GNU, not all the GPLv2 code in the world.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 22, 2006 21:07 UTC (Fri) by quintesse (guest, #14569) [Link] (2 responses)

Uhm no, it very specifically says:

"For a program to be GNU software does not require transferring copyright
to the FSF"

It says "GNU Software", not GPL. So it is wrong to say that GNU requires
all developers to sign over their copyright if they want to call it GNU
software.

There is in fact a whole list of items that GNU software has to adhere to
but signing over copyright is not one of them.

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 22, 2006 22:58 UTC (Fri) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] (1 responses)

In the case of the sentance it does not say reassignment of GNU code... but FSF code. THe FSF may have changed this recently, but if a codebase was considered already to be FSF (coreutils, binutils, etc) then you had to do the copyright signover if you wanted them to look at the patch (and I mean that literally for at least one patch I sent in).

Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 23, 2006 4:45 UTC (Sat) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link]

That might have to do with FSF being able to insure that it can conveniently defend the code in court.