Bitkeeper outrage, old and new
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 7 lines · Jeff Garzik
If you keep a copy locally, sure. But the upstream sources, i.e. what's important, you lose rights to even though you may have contributed substantial amounts of code. IOW if binutils goes off in a direction you don't like, for example the FSF changes the license from GPL to Microsoft EULA, you don't have any say in the matter whatsoever. You're left with a code fork based on the last GPL sources and/or the patches you've kept locally.
Jeff, have you read an FSF copyright assignment?
It doesn't just say "I give you all rights to my work so that you can do whatever you want with it."
Signature · 1 line
Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Quoted 12 lines · Russ Allbery
Quoted 7 lines · Jeff Garzik
If you keep a copy locally, sure. But the upstream sources, i.e. what's important, you lose rights to even though you may have contributed substantial amounts of code. IOW if binutils goes off in a direction you don't like, for example the FSF changes the license from GPL to Microsoft EULA, you don't have any say in the matter whatsoever. You're left with a code fork based on the last GPL sources and/or the patches you've kept locally.
Quoted 1 line
Jeff, have you read an FSF copyright assignment?
yes, many times thank you.
Quoted 2 lines
It doesn't just say "I give you all rights to my work so that you can do whatever you want with it."
Indeed. It continues on, to make legally-questionable assertions about source code availability and royalties, that one IP lawyer I spoke with informally thinks is complete bunk. I would like to see "The Foundation promises..." to hold up in any court.
Jeff
Quoted 4 lines · Jeff Garzik
Indeed. It continues on, to make legally-questionable assertions about source code availability and royalties, that one IP lawyer I spoke with informally thinks is complete bunk. I would like to see "The Foundation promises..." to hold up in any court.
Ah, so rather than it just not addressing any of the stuff you're talking about, it *does* address it but you think that the way it does is legally questionable. Thank you, that's much clearer. I wish you would have said that in the first place.
Signature · 1 line
Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>