On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 09:24:50AM +0100, Andrew Stribblehill wrote: > 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.
I do not find that difference insignificant. In any event, as many others have pointed out, a transfer of copyright might not be valid without a physical, written instrument signed by both parties. So, again, we may have a license that is *trying* to do more than it reasonably *can* do under the law, quite apart from whether its intentions are DFSG-free or not. -- G. Branden Robinson | You live and learn. Debian GNU/Linux | Or you don't live long. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
