Andrew Stribblehill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jesse, the upstream developer of RT3 assures me that they have no > intention of stealing the copyright on code that hasn't been > intentionally given to them for the purpose of inclusion in RT. He's > in consultation with Best Practical's lawyers about how best to > re-word it to reflect their intentions. > > Regarding the concept of taking the copyright of code: it's what the > FSF have been doing since 1992 with Emacs. The difference here is > that if you feel strongly about it, you get to keep your copyright.
That isn't true. The FSF won't distribute anything they don't have the copyright to -- but that's quite different. If I want them to use my patches in their distribution of Emacs, I have to sign copyright assignment papers and transfer my ownership to the FSF. But I can distribute my own modified version of Emacs, and the FSF claims no rights to the code I wrote. This is different. This says that if I publish my modified rt3, and some other person submits that code to Best Practical, that Best Practical can claim copyright on it. That's not only non-free -- and clearly not what Best Practical intended -- that's not even legally effective in the USA. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
