<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:13 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:skip@pobox.com">skip@pobox.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
Georg> - From reading emacs-devel, it seems that the python.el has made<br>
Georg> changes to the mode and explicitly taken them out of the<br>
Georg> copyright assignment for the FSF, so Emacs upstream can't include<br>
Georg> them.<br>
<br>
Georg> So now we are at three different python modes for Emacs... :|<br>
<br>
I'm not sure I understand. Someone forked python.el but won't allow the<br>
changes to go back into the GNU version? Wouldn't that violate the GPL or<br>
LGPL. Who did this?<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Copyright assignment is an issue separate from the license itself. To the extent that Dave's version is derived from the existing python.el then the GNU GPL still applies to his version of python.el if he distributes it to other people. He is the "owner" of the new code that he has written, so that means if he finds someone that redistributes his code in a manner that is violating the GNU GPL license, then he has the legal standing to pursue that violation in court as the copyright holder. However, no one else has the right to pursue it in court on his behalf; you could bring a case to court, but it would be thrown out in just the same way as if you tried to bring a lawsuit against someone illegally redistributing MS Word; you can't sue someone for that, but Microsoft can if they chose to. The license, whether free or proprietary, can only be enforced in the courts by the copyright holder. </div>
<div><br></div><div>The issue of enforcement is one of reasons that the GNU project long ago made a requirement that any code contributions accepted back into the code base and officially branded as GNU software must also have any accompanying copyright assignment.</div>
<div><br></div><div>There are other reasons, as well, including protection from patents so that it would prevent someone from contributing source code to the GNU project on one hand, and then on the other hand using patents against the same set of code. You can read that in the language of one of the example copyright assignment forms I've linked to below.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Aaron</div><div><br></div><div>Here is some further reading:</div><div><br></div><div>An official statement about why they require copyright assignment:</div><div><a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>An example of the copyright assignment form</div><div><a href="http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-09/msg00678.html">http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-09/msg00678.html</a></div><div><br></div><div>Excerpt from the above form intended to protect against harm from patents:</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; ">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; "><pre> The Assigner hereby agrees that if it has or acquires hereafter any
patent or interface copyright or other intellectual property interest
dominating the program enhanced by the Work (or use of that program), such
dominating interest will not be used to undermine the effect of this
assignment, i.e. the Foundation and the general public will be licensed to
use, in that program and its derivative works, without royalty or
limitation, the subject matter of the dominating interest. This license
provision will be binding on the assignees of, or other successors to, the
dominating interest, as well as on the Assigner.</pre></span></blockquote></div>