[Info-vax] The real problem that needs solving to grow VMS

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 12/16/2022 2:10 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 12/16/22 13:11, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2022-12-16, Bill Gunshannon <bill.gunshannon at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/15/22 20:23, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If it went to court and GPL lost in lower court, then I predict that
>>>> the GPL defenders could collect a billions dollars to help with the
>>>> appeal in an hour just by calling all the big IT companies.
>>>
>>> Or the other possibility being that those billions of dollars would
>>> be applied to arguing that because it was given away with a totally
>>> bogus license it has actually been released into the public domain.
>>>
>>
>> That doesn't make any sense Bill.
>>
>> The GPL is a permission to use software created by the author under
>> a set of conditions imposed by that author.
>>
>> If the GPL is found to be something that cannot be imposed, then the
>> permission granted by the author is revoked, and hence nobody but the
>> author can use the software until they release it under a new licence.
>>
>> There is no possible path from "the GPL is invalid" to "the author no
>> longer has any rights over the software they created" (which is what
>> public domain means).
> 
> Actually, there is.  The last time I read any of that drivel they
> were having people sign their IP over to the FSF.  So, if you are
> right about what happens if the GPL fails in court, who ends out
> owning the IP?  he author or the FSF?

Whoever owns the copyright. That is usually the author or the company
that paid the author. But IPR can be sold or given away.

FSF has a policy of having authors signover copyright for official
GNU software.

Some open source groups using GPL license like the Linux kernel team
does not do that.

Arne