Per> False. We know what RMS's intentions are. But until tested in court it's hard to be sure what any of this means, especially if controlled by a malevolent force. It's a huge body of source code; in the process of getting the assignments to better protect it, the FSF has also created a single point of failure for all of it. I trust the FSF, for the code that I've assigned, enough to be unwilling to actually _pay_ a lawyer to look at these issues. On the other hand, I would not be surprised if corporate lawyers (eg, Sun's) have taken the kind of conservative stance that Ben argues for. Both of your examples have plausible counterarguments. Per> The standard assignment has this clause: Per> Upon thirty days' prior written notice, the Foundation Per> agrees to grant me non-exclusive rights to use the Work Per> (i.e. my changes and enhancements, not the program which I Per> enhanced) as I see fit; (and the Foundation's rights shall Per> otherwise continue unchanged). I just asked a lawyer, what, if anything, this clause means. He hasn't replied yet. It is not clear to me whether "use" would allow redistribution under another license without the FSF's explicit participation, since licensing is evidently a power of the copyright holder. That is, I could resell my code to Microsoft for incorporation in a proprietary product, but the contract would be between Microsoft and the FSF; all I would get is a "finder's fee." At that point I don't see what, if any, responsibilities the FSF would have to me in the future. In fact, I think it highly likely that the FSF would refuse to enforce the contract on my behalf. Per> There are other options. For example, you can "disclaim" Per> copyright - i.e. sign a statement that you're putting your Per> changes into the public domain. Not a profit-oriented corporation. A corporation has a fiduciary responsibility to its stockholders. Using GPL, you can argue you've discharged that obligation by the usual ESR-style arguments about efficacy of open-source development, but disclaiming copyright is simply destroying corporate assets. Per> False. From http://gcc.gnu.org/fsf-forms/assign.changes: Per> (The FSF uses multiple forms, but they have this clause.) It is true that the FSF is restricted from enforcing proprietary licenses themselves, but they could abandon the Work to the public domain, which would have the same effect of permitting proprietary improvements to the code. (My lawyer buddy says this is plausible. Ie, he would not be too embarrassed to defend the FSF in court if they were sued for doing this.) This would clearly violate the intentions of most authors who make such an assignment! It is precisely this scenario which is of primary concern to me; I don't see how the GPL could be revoked on code already distributed under the GPL. RMS has acknowledged this apparent bug in the assignment. I gather he hasn't fixed it yet. Or has he gotten advice that it is inapplicable? -- University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091 _________________ _________________ _________________ _________________ What are those straight lines for? "XEmacs rules."