On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 16:14 +0200, Erwin Rol wrote:
On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 19:18 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 15:13 +0200, Erwin Rol wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 18:04 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 11:54 +0200, Erwin Rol wrote:
> > > > With some seriously ugly hacks i got it to compile and run, of
> > > > still a lot of bugs but when it would be a real community project
> > > > copyright assignments, and no CC-non-commercial license) I think it
> > > > be made to work with gcj.
> > >
> > > Many community projects including all of the GNU ones require copyright
> > > assignments. That is on many occasions a good practice.
> > And it is also a PITA to do paperwork before you can help with a
> > project. This about if everybody that helps with Fedora has to sign
> > legal paperwork, which of course is different in every country. Of
> > course if you want to sell the GPL work of others under a closed source
> > license like MySQl, Qt, Open-Xchange, than you need to be the copyright
> > holder. So the main thing copyright assignment does is turn GPL code
> > into BSD-like code (be it for a smaller group, the ones the copyrights
> > are assigned to). A true community project has no need for copyright
> > assignment.
> Incorrect. Any project (not just those dual licensed) would be benefit
> from a better legal stand point by retaining the copyright over all
You can also look at it this way, a country is way easier to control by
a dictator than by some pesky parliament that always disagree with each
other. But still most people would rather not have a dictator in their
country. If people can not agree what to do about a copyright violation
of a common piece of software, maybe that's how it should be, maybe
creating a "dictator" by assigning all copyright to "him" is not
in the best interest of the community.
Assigning copyrights doesnt require any dictator (individual) . You can
very well assign copyrights to foundations like Apache or organizations
Of course the FSF is "always" doing the "right" thing, so assigning
copyright to them is probably not a problem. But what good is it for the
community to assign copyright to some company like the one making
Open-Xchange, MySql, Qt etc. ?
I was pointing out that there are good benefits out of the scheme.
Whether you choose to assign your copyrights to dual licensing
organizations is more of a question of trust, renumeration etc.