On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 18:04 +0000, Daniel Martin wrote: > No, the Hurd doesn't belong to RMS. Just as GNU doesn't belong to > RMS.
FSF requires an assignment agreement for all contributions to FSF projects. As I understand it, the Hurd is an FSF project. If so, the Hurd belongs to FSF. This is a legal statement, not a philosophical statement. The Hurd does not belong to the FSF in anyway. The FSF might be the copyright holders, but they are not the owners of the Hurd. Anyone can take the Hurd and make a fork of it, and many users have their own private versions of the Hurd with their local hacks. The FSF and GNU project are even against the whole bizar concept of owning software, see for example the essay Why Software Should Not Have Owners. > Like all free software if it belongs to anyone it belongs to it's > users. But then software is just mathematics, it's not property, > so how can it belong to anyone? Spoken like someone who has absolutely no idea how intellectual property works in the law. The term "intellectual property" has no meaning in law, it is a vauge word mixing several differnt and unrelated topics into the same bowl (copyright, trademark, patents). What Daniel Martin said is entierly correct. Owning software is makes as much sense as owning PI. _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
