From owner-freebsd-chat  Wed Feb 19 09:15:00 1997
Return-Path: <owner-chat>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA03635
          for chat-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:15:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id JAA03619
          for <chat@freebsd.org>; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:14:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA22821; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:14:21 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:14:21 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199702191714.KAA22821@rocky.mt.sri.com>
From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
In-Reply-To: <199702190259.VAA11531@kropotkin.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
References: <199702190019.RAA19825@rocky.mt.sri.com>
	<199702190259.VAA11531@kropotkin.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Sender: owner-chat@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> >> >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'.
> 
> The assimilating company would still have the stipulation on its
> shoulders.  It is a legal contract, and by taking the code, they also
> take all contractual obligations associated therewith.

Actually, no.  That's where you're wrong.  But, in any case, I'm not
going to continue this conversation since it's degenerating into a silly
arguement anyways.


Nate