Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

Posted Sep 22, 2006 21:07 UTC (Fri) by quintesse (guest, #14569)
In reply to: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3 by ajross
Parent article: Kernel developers' position on GPLv3

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.

to post comments

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.