Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:14:21 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu Cc: nate@mt.sri.com, dg@root.com, ben@narcissus.ml.org, obrien@nuxi.com, chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GPL Message-ID: <199702191714.KAA22821@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199702190259.VAA11531@kropotkin.gnu.ai.mit.edu> References: <199702190019.RAA19825@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199702190259.VAA11531@kropotkin.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> >This is why the FSF requires that all submitters of code to their tools > >> >sign over the Copyright to the FSF, which apparently will make sure the > >> >code is always free. (Although last night I had a interesting > >> >discussion on that point where it would be possible that the code could > >> >become 'non-free') > >> ENQ? Point: The FSF has accepted large amounts of code (ie, I believe > >> all of the code from its major hackers) on the stipulation that it > >> will be forever free. > >What if the FSF were 'dissolved' for some reason (say due to the death > >of RMS), and a commercial company bought the assets (which includes all > >of the existing GPL code). The code at that point would be the property > >of this company, who could decide to 'take it propriatary'. > > The assimilating company would still have the stipulation on its > shoulders. It is a legal contract, and by taking the code, they also > take all contractual obligations associated therewith. Actually, no. That's where you're wrong. But, in any case, I'm not going to continue this conversation since it's degenerating into a silly arguement anyways. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702191714.KAA22821>