Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
"Aaron W. LaFramboise" wrote: [...]
The strategy that the FSF uses is to require a formal copyright assignment for all non-trivial contributions. That puts them into a very good legal position, as they are able to license anything in any manner they like;
Wrong. While the FSF can sell all trensferred copyrights to Microsoft, the ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT (contract) states that
"The Foundation agrees that all of its distributions of the Transferred Work, or of any work "based on the Transferred Work" (that is any work that in whole or in part incorporates or is derived from all or part of the Transferred Work), shall be under a version of the Foundation's General Public License, Lesser General Public License or Library General Public License (collectively "LGPL").
Technically, however, that is not a barrier, since the foundation can create additional licenses with the desired provisions, and refer to such documents as additional versions of the General Public License or Lesser General Public License.
[snip]
-- Jeremy Maitin-Shepard