Re: Copyright question

[Andreas Röhler]

Am Freitag, 13. Juni 2008 schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
> 'n Morgen Andreas!
> 
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 10:55:14AM +0200, Andreas Röhler wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 13. Juni 2008 schrieb Glenn Morris:
> > > "??smail Dönmez" wrote:
> 
> > > > Of course he can relicense it
> 
> > > This was not as obvious to me as it was to others, since we assign
> > > our past and future rights to the FSF. But looking at the details,
> > > they grant rights back to the original author, so if there is a
> > > "pristine" version of org.texi that is solely your own work, you can
> > > probably do what you like with it.
> 
> > What means "pristine"? New from the scratch?
> 
> No, the state it was in before others edited it.
> 
> > Copyright-assigment policy will lead to burocracy.
> 
> Yes.  But it also prevents other, worse, bureaucracy (yes, it's much
> easier to spell in German ;-).
> 
> > It will discourage people and stiffle their creativity. And probably it
> > will shadow reputation of FSF, which is to deplore not only for Emacs's
> > sake.
> 
> It hasn't stifled my creativity.  What the copyright assignment is really
> about is when "my" copyright is violated, I've got the FSF to take up the
> legal cudgels, something I couldn't do on my own.
> 
[ ... ]

Hi, Gruß nach Nürnberg,

let aside some stipulations in the assigment itself: In
case of GPL violations FSF could pay the lawyer and
take over the legal fees (as getting
your right from courts and have it are fairly
different kind of things in this world :)).

With respect to the financial consequences, should once
cap. 8 (Termination) of GPL_v3 come into consideration
for businesses, I have some (abstract) fears: A kind
of GPL-violations-industry might rise up. We have seen
such "humanitarian" industries already in other areas,
making lawyers rich but ruin common people and
businesses. At least that's not freedom. And sure,
that's not nowadays FSF's intention.

Thanks all

Andreas Röhler