[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: A response to RMS (was Loading a package applies automatically to fu

From: George Plymale II
Subject: Re: A response to RMS (was Loading a package applies automatically to future sessions?)
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 18:42:23 -0500

> All our software releaes give you this; they give this
> to the public at large.

>   > According to my understanding of the FSF's copyright policy, I have to
>   > notify the FSF when I want to distribute my changes because they're no
>   > longer mine; they're theirs.

Sorry, as I said to Clement Pit-Claudel, I should have (and intended to)
write this sentence in the past tense. I mistakenly wrote it in the
present tense. It was clarified to me by other messages on this thread
that this is not part of the FSF's policy. When I wrote the word
"hypocritical," that was not clarified to me.

> You don't have to notify the FSF to redistribute our software releases
> under the GPL.

> The unlimited nonexclusive license in the assignment contracts
> concerns using that code in other ways, not necessarily in accord with
> the GPL.

> Some of our assignment contracts say that the author has to explicitly
> activate the nonexclusive license.  Others say that the nonexclusive
> license starts right away.  If the author prefers the latter form, we
> always use it.

Right, this is what I was not aware of in my original message where I
used the word "hypocritical."

> You seem to be bending over backwards to put us in the wrong.

I am not trying to put anyone "in the wrong." If I were, this would be a
rather different (uglier) debate.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]