Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:19:54 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu Cc: nate@mt.sri.com, dg@root.com, ben@narcissus.ml.org, obrien@nuxi.com, chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GPL Message-ID: <199702190019.RAA19825@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199702190006.TAA09986@kropotkin.gnu.ai.mit.edu> References: <199702181845.LAA18064@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199702190006.TAA09986@kropotkin.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> Suppose that 20 other people contributed patches to it during the time > >> it was under GPL? ...you'd have to get written permission from all of those > >> people before you could put a different copyright on it. > >This is why the FSF requires that all submitters of code to their tools > >sign over the Copyright to the FSF, which apparently will make sure the > >code is always free. (Although last night I had a interesting > >discussion on that point where it would be possible that the code could > >become 'non-free') > > ENQ? Point: The FSF has accepted large amounts of code (ie, I believe > all of the code from its major hackers) on the stipulation that it > will be forever free. What if the FSF were 'dissolved' for some reason (say due to the death of RMS), and a commercial company bought the assets (which includes all of the existing GPL code). The code at that point would be the property of this company, who could decide to 'take it propriatary'. When a company/corporation no longer exists, it's assets and contractual obligations are up in the ari. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702190019.RAA19825>