Re: FLA

Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 08:40:26PM +0000, Richard Moore wrote:
> > Certainly, *but* they gain the right to relicense the code under a more
> > liberal regeme than I want. They also gain the right to make it harder
> > for the average person to get hold of the code under *my* chosen
> > license.
> > The license you refer to is totally irrelevent because by assigning the
> > copyright to them, they get the right to use any license they choose.
> 
> Just for clarification:
> 
> The FLA is different from a copyright assignment the FSF was using in the US.
> It is a contract.
> It does not allow the fiduciary to use any license they want.
> This would break the contract especially if you can argue in court
> that the fiduciary broke the promisse of paragraph 4 (3).
> 
> In any way you get rights to relicense under different
> licenses as much as you want.

This is a useful distinction, the trouble is that Marc's message also
discusses the separate issue of copyright assignment at the same time.
I have a considerably less strong opinion about the principle of the
FLA than I do to the issue of copyright assignment.

Rich.

> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature