Re: Bitkeeper outrage, old and new

[Jeff Garzik]

Ben Collins wrote:
>>The whole point of the copyright assignment is that FSF becomes 
>>copyright owner.
>>
>>This is so that Jeff Garzik cannot be strongarmed into changing the 
>>license on his code, or some other anti-software-freedom tactic levied 
>>against me in the future.  In theory, the FSF as an organization will 
>>protect the rights of the software when I might weaken and give in.
>>
>>But in exchange for that protection, you are willingly giving up your 
>>rights as copyright owner...  Less freedom for [hopefully] better 
>>protection.  Just like everything in life, it's a tradeoff... :)
>>
> 
> 
> I disagree. I don't see anything in the copyright assignment (and I have
> signed a few for the FSF) that says I don't retain original copyright
> for my work.

If you keep a copy locally, sure.  But the upstream sources, i.e. what's 
important, you lose rights to even though you may have contributed 
substantial amounts of code.  IOW if binutils goes off in a direction 
you don't like, for example the FSF changes the license from GPL to 
Microsoft EULA, you don't have any say in the matter whatsoever.  You're 
left with a code fork based on the last GPL sources and/or the patches 
you've kept locally.

With Linux, I have a say in what happens to the upstream sources -- the 
thing most people care about :)

	Jeff