On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 04:43:37PM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
I am aware that certain long-standing RMS-specific projects,
like emacs, require people who submit patches to sign-over their
copyright, but I am not aware of people generally signing
the copyright for their own
From: Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The rights are assigned, with the terms being in consideration for
examination of the submission (it's not a contract unless there is
consideration and exchange).
Don't bet on it ! Law Is a mess or a nightmare, variable by
time location,
:
:Just to balance this point out;
:
:Only the copyright holder can do this, what code of any significance has
:RMS contributed recently to this or any other project where this would be
:a consideration?
:
:Uh, people have been signing their copyright over to FSF for a long
:time...
:
:--
Matthew Dillon wrote:
I am aware that certain long-standing RMS-specific projects,
like emacs, require people who submit patches to sign-over their
copyright, but I am not aware of people generally signing
the copyright for their own GPL'd works over to the FSF. RMS
:The way ReiserFS does this is to affix a contract to the CVS change
:submission, or require that the contract be manually affixed to any
:email submissions.
:
:The rights are assigned, with the terms being in consideration for
:examination of the submission (it's not a contract unless there is
+---[ Terry Lambert ]--
|
| RMS has indicated a willingness to sue people distributing bipartite
| distributions, where the linking is delayed until installation to
| work around the letter of the GPL. Given his religious convictions,
| I can't see him *not*. Factor that
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrew Kenneth Milt
on writes:
+---[ Terry Lambert ]--
|
| RMS has indicated a willingness to sue people distributing bipartite
| distributions, where the linking is delayed until installation to
| work around the letter of the GPL. Given his
hi,
why would RMS sue, lets say me, for porting IBM's
piece of GPL'ed code to FreeBSD src/gnu.
What i will be doing (if the votes come out positive),
will be exactly as how his law says...
--- Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Andrew Kenneth Milt
on
Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote:
+---[ Terry Lambert ]--
| RMS has indicated a willingness to sue people distributing bipartite
| distributions, where the linking is delayed until installation to
| work around the letter of the GPL. Given his religious convictions,
| I
+---[ Poul-Henning Kamp ]--
| In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andrew Kenneth Milt
| on writes:
| +---[ Terry Lambert ]--
| |
| | RMS has indicated a willingness to sue people distributing bipartite
| | distributions, where the linking is delayed until
+---[ Terry Lambert ]--
|
| Only the copyright holder can do this, what code of any significance has
| RMS contributed recently to this or any other project where this would be
| a consideration?
|
| I can't argue with that; historically, IBM has never sued anyone, and
Hiten Pandya wrote:
why would RMS sue, lets say me, for porting IBM's
piece of GPL'ed code to FreeBSD src/gnu.
RMS wouldn't, not being directly involved. IBM might.
I am a former IBM employee, of IBM GSB division (Global Small
Business). I became an IBM employee when IBM bought Whistle
Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote:
| I can't argue with that; historically, IBM has never sued anyone, and
| they were oh so happy to consider another license for the year I tried
| to push for it for use in a FreeBSD based IBM product. Not.
Of course not, the GPL protects them from competitors
+---[ Terry Lambert ]--
| Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote:
| | I can't argue with that; historically, IBM has never sued anyone, and
| | they were oh so happy to consider another license for the year I tried
| | to push for it for use in a FreeBSD based IBM product. Not.
|
14 matches
Mail list logo
