On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:00:13 -0400 "Alfred M. Szmidt" <a...@gnu.org> wrote:
> Given that there are plenty of high-profile projects out there > which seem to be entirely safe in the absence of copyright > assignment policies, why, exactly, does GCC need one to be "legally > safe"? > > I do not know what high-profile projects you are refering to Kernel, apache, MeeGo, git, for starters. > you will > have to ask them why they think they can ignore a paper trail. Copyright assignment != paper trail. > Having > one copyright holder solves many issues when enforcing copyright, you > do not need to contact all parties. The projects with the most public success at enforcing free licensing are the kernel and busybox. Neither requires copyright assignment. The enforcement actions did not require the contacting of all parties - where did that assertion come from? I would not presume to tell the GCC project what its policy should be; that's a decision for the people who are doing the work. But I do get irritated when people claim that copyright assignment is required to somehow keep a project "safe" or to make the copyright enforceable. Both claims are demonstrably false. jon
