as FSF assignment policy was raised again at python-mode(a)python.org, please permit to ask you a thing I never understood: AFAIS every Emacs-file is inspired by many, many others from the very beginning. We see almost always a plenty of revisions with a lot of people involved. So how a single developer could ever declare what the assignment formula demands? How could any person declare, he _owns_ the rights at the code, thus assigning it. Isn't that assignment policy driving developers in a kind of forgery? Making them false declarations, thus having rights about them, being everyday able to sue them for these false declarations? Or am I simply dreaming a bad dream?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSX8fv3EjvBPtnXfVAQLmIQP+PEmVj8VAScnjy7VqMTWiDlAQGIk18m++ //9mPWX0/v30dzaeCJqQclnde229I6sLQf0hshRRUUcBwKvbrGmZB6ehBHLI+u1P fSDsThQsN46rhnnpmloMxONXVJ4g4ubuDTsjUNy8Pixj7MHTBkqxgNhPBQO42twf /xu4vVhjj5g= =pr3h -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I am not a lawyer, and I don't speak for the FSF or the Emacs Project. I do speak for the XEmacs Project until such time as someone feels like complaining about it. :-) Andreas Roehler writes: > as FSF assignment policy was raised again at > python-mode(a)python.org, please permit to ask you a > thing I never understood: > > AFAIS every Emacs-file is inspired by many, many others > from the very beginning. We see almost always a plenty > of revisions with a lot of people involved. AIUI, this is one of the motivations for the free software movement: each program created is a joint creation of the apparent author(s), and of the community around them. (I'm pretty sure Richard would say it's not the most important motivation, but I suppose he will acknowledge it.) Nevertheless, software *also* exists in a legal environment, and the assignment policy (like the GPL) is a compromise between the *goal* of software freedom and the *limited means* provided[1] by that legal system for implementing software freedom. > So how a single developer could ever declare what the > assignment formula demands? How could any person > declare, he _owns_ the rights at the code, thus > assigning it. For starters, he doesn't make such a declaration about "the" code. He makes that declaration about his own contribution. The way he acquires that power is simple: he writes some code down. That's all it takes! Whether he publishes or not. Then, according to the Berne Convention and other applicable treaties, he is automatically awarded such copyright privileges as are created by the law of each jurisdiction in which the software is available. Exactly what privileges he is awarded are determined by the local laws, and which parts of the software are "his" are determined in principle by the law, and in practice by a court if his claims are contested. In other words, the question you are asking is not posed by the assignment policy, but rather by the very existence of copyright itself. The assignment policy, then, is one of an array of policies (including advocacy of copyleft licenses, for example) adopted by the free software movement to preserve software freedom, in the context of such a legal system. > Isn't that assignment policy driving developers in a > kind of forgery? Making them false declarations, > thus having rights about them, being everyday able to > sue them for these false declarations? No. There is no forgery, assuming you make the claim in good faith. You may still be liable for infringement if you are mistaken about the extent of your rights, just as you may be liable for an automobile accident if the car in front of you stops without warning for no apparent reason and you run into it. > Or am I simply dreaming a bad dream? There is no law in the U.S. or Japan about "making declarations", I don't know about Europe. That is, the fact that you assign what you believe to be your code to another party does not increase your risk, per se. What matters is if you make or enable copies, or the assignee does. But for free software, the risk imposed by assignee-made copies is precisely the same as the risk imposed by GPL-licensee-made copies. In other words, if the risk involved in assigning your code bothers you, what are you doing participating in free software at all? However, the idemnity clause of the standard FSF assignment contract may increase your risk, since you're required to defend the FSF as well as yourself. Ask a lawyer if that bothers you. Note: I personally am not particularly a fan of the assignment policy, though the recent trend in many projects to adopt such a policy may force me to reconsider that position. However, the objections you seem to have in mind really apply to copyright itself, and the assignment policy is just shadowing it.

Regards, Steve Footnotes: [1] Or barriers presented, if you will.

On Jan 27, 2009, at 4:08 AM, Andreas Roehler wrote: > as FSF assignment policy was raised again at > python-mode(a)python.org, please permit to ask you a > thing I never understood: > AFAIS every Emacs-file is inspired by many, many others > from the very beginning. We see almost always a plenty > of revisions with a lot of people involved. > So how a single developer could ever declare what the > assignment formula demands? How could any person > declare, he _owns_ the rights at the code, thus > assigning it. > Isn't that assignment policy driving developers in a > kind of forgery? Making them false declarations, > thus having rights about them, being everyday able to > sue them for these false declarations? > Or am I simply dreaming a bad dream? For this audience, I'll restate my position, vis-à-vis python-mode. I assert that Tim Peters and myself have assigned copyright in python-mode.el to the FSF. I believe that Ken Manheimer has done the same, and I believe that Skip Montanaro has tried to do so several times in the past. This should cover the majority if not the entirety of the current python-mode.el file. I want it to be possible from a legal standpoint to merge python-mode.el and python.el, taking the best and most popular features and functionality from each. I think python-mode.el should form the basis of the merge, with code pulled in from python.el as needed. Andreas has the current momentum pumpkin for working on python-mode.el, so I want to find a way for him to do this while still retaining the ability to merge the two modes. Note that Andreas, AFAIK has not volunteered to do this merge, although others on the python-mode(a)python.org mailing list have expressed interest. If Andreas is unwilling to assign copyright to the FSF, then perhaps some other mechanism will be acceptable to him and to the FSF. Please explore this possibility. Thanks Barry

From this some chances too: Not every feature once

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSYIGgHEjvBPtnXfVAQIaiwQAsIso85sDuWwfpFscsRl8+g/AxSwH/Kpc WlwtgQ/4nOg6hGXMBy1oCoYLDiv2bIHJR9b6Wj2NhBikm/BUiTUy5Z5k1N4d1DZr UseIM0JZ0l8mUFIP9VaMqvmHICuSjEt++KZl4ftbINB/gNgMvVThsaoHsX4gGWfo 0QT6VZZk2h0= =H94V -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Since Andreas Röhler is unwilling to sign legal papers for his code in python.el, we cannot use it in Emacs. Would anyone like to implement for python-mode.el whatever nice features python.el may have? Barry, could you make a TODO list?

Hi (X)Emacs folks, as FSF assignment policy was raised again at python-mode(a)python.org, please permit to ask you a thing I never understood: AFAIS every Emacs-file is inspired by many, many others from the very beginning. We see almost always a plenty of revisions with a lot of people involved. So how a single developer could ever declare what the assignment formula demands? How could any person declare, he _owns_ the rights at the code, thus assigning it. Isn't that assignment policy driving developers in a kind of forgery? Making them false declarations, thus having rights about them, being everyday able to sue them for these false declarations? Or am I simply dreaming a bad dream?