From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-04 18:50:00
"Aaron W. LaFramboise" wrote:
[... "FSF's assignees" ...]
> No. I found only one hit for this wording, here:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/bug-glibc@gnu.org/msg00395.html
> I am actually unsure of where this wording comes from, as it is
> significantly different from all of the standard FSF assignments.
Well, I'm not surprised. ;-)
>
> I found a copy of (old; the FSF now mails the forms to developers
> directly) assignment forms here:
> http://pluto.cdpa.nsysu.edu.tw/xemacs/old-beta/FSF
> assign.future was the standard form for most developers. The recent,
> physical copy of an assignment form that I have examined is very similar
> to this one.
Ah. Now I see what you mean by saying "FSF's assignees". ;-) Well,
but the term "assignees" doesn't include "nonexclusive licensees"
(and/or "sublicensees"), oder? As long as the GPL is not a binding
contract restricting the distribution of lawfully made copies, any
"licensed" owner of a copy [read: everybody and his dog] "is
entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or
otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy" under any terms
s/he likes provided that new terms don't violate any exclusive
rights of the "FSF's assignees" (again modulo first sale and other
copyright exceptions).
regards,
alexander.