On Mar 9, 2006, at 6:34 PM, Archie Cobbs wrote:
David Daney wrote:
So, given these things and my love for this project, I would
really like the FSF to allow the developers to provide Classpath
under an Apache compatible license in addition to the current
licensing scheme, at least
I would support that idea. However, I don't think we require the
FSF's
permission. We are the authors of Classpath and therefore retain
copyright privledges.
IANAL, but I could swear that I signed over copyright to the FSF
long ago.
IANAL either .. but I think you "assigned copyright" to them,
meaning you
gave them the right to copyright. This has no effect on your own
right to
the copyright of your own work. Ie, you did "cp self fsf", not "mv
self fsf".
But since IANAL and TINLA [1], I should probably just shut up for
now :-)
I think technically the FSF assigns back to you permission to use any
contributions you make (but not the work as a whole) however you want
(you can read what you signed ;-) on fencepost, in /gd/gnuorg/
Copyright). So you can use code that you write in proprietary/other
software, if you want. The FSF still owns the copyright on Classpath
as a whole, however, and so the decision on what license they release
Classpath under is at the FSF's discretion, as long as they use a
free license (this is also specified in the agreement; the FSF can't
turn your work proprietary, even if you assigned them copyright over
your contributions). So sure, the FSF could release Classpath under
the disjunction of the GPL and the ASL, if they saw it as fit to.
At least that's how I understand it. Standard disclaimers apply...
