"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.