> 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. If with kernel you mean Linux, then they require you to agree to an type of assignment (though not in paper form), same for git. Linux (and git) started with this right around when SCO started threatening free software projects. If such a such an agreement is legally binding or not is for the court to decide, the assignments from the FSF are legally binding, though (they are contracts). Apache requires an assignment as well from the looks, see http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt I do not know about MeeGo. Regarding BusyBox, it was Erik Anderseen who filed suite (via SFLC), but he can only file suite for the code he holds the copyright over. If a company manages to remove the code he holds copyright over, and nobody of the other copyright holders wish to sue, then the company can go about violating the license.
