🚀 go-pugleaf

Tim Smith (tzs@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: Tom Tromey <tromey@klab.caltech.edu> wrote:
: >But I must admit, this requirement is a stumper to me.  Could anyone
: >explain why the GPL is not enough?  I thought the whole point of the
: >GPL was to ensure that subsequent changes were free... so then why
: >this extra step?

: If I release some code of mine under GPL, but keep the copyright myself,
: then I can also release it under non-GPL licenses.  For example, I could
: sell Microsoft a license to make derivative works and release them in
: binary-only form.  This does not fit in with FSF's agenda.

: If I assign the copyright to FSF, then I can no longer release the code
: to anyone under a non-GPL license.  This fits in with FSF's agenda.

The standard agreement FSF uses explicitly allows you to
release the code commercially after you give written notice to the
FSF. I believe they want assignment of copyright (or public domain
code) because they do not want a complex web of copyright notices on
their code and they want to be free to alter the terms of the GPL
without getting permission from a host of copyright holders.
The only way they can be sure of this is if someone can guarantee
to them they own copyright to the code and are transferring that
copyright to the FSF or making the code public domain.

Paul Budnik